The Advarsary System

Just because I felt like it, I decided to post my final critical thinking essay here on my blog, to see if it warrants any notice.

Michael Parker
Philosophy 130
12/9/08

Adversarial Justice System

 Two Primary system of law are currently in practice across the world, the Inquisitorial System and the Adversarial System. An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case. The Adversarial System works under the assumption that having two equally vigorous lawyers will distil the truth in a fair court of law; like a crucible, melting away all impurities and leaving nothing but the truth. Both systems have their merits, and both systems have their flaws. My understanding is limited in the area of law practices, but being an understanding critical thinker, I have taken the information I have found and come to a conclusion; the Adversarial System, I think, has more strong merits than flaws, with one primary exception exception, the jury. A jury involved in an adversarial case only muddies the waters, allowing for more confusing the truth rather than distilling it.
The ideals of the jury system have a lot of merit. It is easy to understand wanting to remove more power from a cabal of individuals in a legal preceding. The Inquisitorial System allows a judge, or judges, to take part in the investigation, sometimes being allowed to question witnesses. Imagining corruption or misconduct is easy. Relying on the jury is a way of placing the burden of conviction on a (supposedly) impartial source, outside of the legal system, as opposed to leaving everything to those involved with a case. But that distance from the process is also part of the problem. 
Our Adversarial system has evolved to a process of appealing to the juries more than distilling the truth. Both prosecution and defense lawyers both use social acumen, public speaking techniques, and a persuasive presence to lure jurors in supporting their arguments. Evidence and the facts of the case are presented and explained, but often many of the legal aspects of any given case are passing above the head of the common juror. This lack of understanding of the legal proceedings can justify lawyers appealing more to the jury than to the justice of the court. 
 The average familiarity of the court system is slight; most people just don’t fully understand what happens in a court room. This included process and technicalities of the court. A piece of information is stricken from the record, most people don’t have the training or understanding to disregard information once it has come into the open. In addition the ramifications of a particular crime and case play into the minds of jurors. In the Leroy Reed Case, his initial guilt was not in question, but the nature of the Reeds punishment allowed many jurors to justify giving a verdict of not guilty, not wanting to send a fairly complacent man to prison for a crime that he himself did not fully understand. These inabilities in the average juror could be corrected in the selection process, but this would compromise the system of jury of peers; leaving only those who had a firm understanding of both their roll and the court process. And if we are selecting people for those skills in particular why not make that just as much of the court process as the lawyers, the judge, and the bailiffs. Add a designated juror who understands all of the rules of court and what the court needs from them. 
We, as a republic with democratic leanings, elect public officials every election. We choose people with more training and expertise to make decisions that don’t fully understand, or to perform jobs we can not or do not want to do. Therefore could we not logically have elected and volunteer officials that perform the same function as a juror, but are already integrated to and familiar with the legal system. They could be in the same way, with random summoning and interrogative selection process. This idea has some issues to resolve before it can fully be considered.
Corruption and prejudice could still be a problem. A smaller group of individuals could be easier to influence than a group which is randomly determined a month in advance. However, the same could be said of an individual with no attachment to the legal process, easily corrupted because of his apathy on a matter. These theoretical professional jurors would also have professional ethics to consider as well as just personal moral code. Prejudice might be less of a problem, when jurors are selected lawyers on both sides question potential jurors to see if they are able to serve on any given trial based on background and attitude. A similar system could be applied to these professional jurors, on top of that it could be made more efficient, because they are continually sitting on cases, when they are disqualified for a type of case, they could be flagged not to be called for another crime of the same type, thus saving time. 
 While the Adversary System has its flaws, its alternatives are not exempt from criticism. A Common Law practice in the Inquisitorial System does not allow for a guilty plea, requiring a trial to determine guilt even with a confession. While this might cut down on false confessions gained through coercion, it also wastes time with trials that don’t need to be performed. Furthermore, the rules of admissibility of evidence allows judges to act more like an enquirer than an arbiter of justice, mixing the roles that a judge plays in the justice process, expanding the responsibilities rather than defusing them. These aspects of the process show that it is not without its faults. 
 Mixing the two systems might be the best alternative for those who see the merits and flaws of each without wanting to commit strictly to one. We see that in our current systems already, some Common Law countries have a form of adversary trials with a tribunal. And several bureaucratic administrations have a tribunal for deciding menial matters, such as traffic violations in New York. And eliminating the jury from our adversary system is just an extension of that, not quite switching to an Inquisitorial System, but incorporation and extrapolation of the concepts that work.