Common law and civic law
Common law and civic law
Common law and civic law are the two major forms of legal systems practiced in the world with common law focus on court decisions while civic law focuses on judicial statutes or rather government legislation. According to 2014 statistics the former is followed in 80 countries and the latter predominates in 150 nations. There has been extensive debate and research as to the best system for economic progress as well as the administration of justice
In common law i.e thehttps://mydissertationprofessor.com/legislation-comparison-grid-and-testimony-advocacy-statement/ adversary system there is a judge, the two sides against each other and a team of independently selected individuals referred to as the jury without formal legal training who listen and analyze the facts presented but the judge is the ultimate decision maker. Civil law ie the inquisitorial system on the other hand is based on the concept of following a set of established rule set up by the governing body, established legal structures and judgment is determined upon this written set of rules. In an adversarial system there is minimal bias, since it does not follow an established framework of regulations and decisions are binding in that provisions can be introduced whenever need arises. However in civic law scenario there is a written constitution which does not allow either party to introduce new provisions and this be done only through legislation; the mandate of authorized institutions. Adversarial system the rights of the defendant are of utmost importance:i.e the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent however in an inquisitor system a defendant has few rights and remaining silent shows lack of cooperation with the process and this can be interpreted as a sign of guilt. Adversarial system both the defense attorney and the prosecutor present facts as they best understand them while in inquisitory system the defendant has the right to make an appeal if he/she thinks she was not justly convicted and the prosecutor and the police are responsible in running the investigationThe defense attorney attacks the credibility and worthiness of evidence of the prosecution inorder to attack the credibility.In the latter the judge is much passive and remains neutral till judgement while in the former the judge actively controls the search for evidence and questions the witness.
Therefore as a criminal defendant presumably guilty the adversarial system is much favorable as the main goal is to drive the jury of your not based by facts andevidence but through mischief andplaying with emotions on other side,as criminal defendant presumably innocent inquisitory system is much favorable has facts and evidence are crucial and with a chance of appeal.The adversarysystem promotestheultimate objective of the guiltybe convictedandthe innocent set free.
Gunn, J., & Mevis, P. (2018). Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Systems of Trial and Investigation in Criminal. Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology in Europe: A Cross-Border Study Guide, 1.
Langer, M. (2015). Strength, Weakness or Both? On the Endurance of the Adversarial-Inquisitorial Systems in Comparative Criminal Procedure.
Sevier, J. (2014). The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 212.