NCJ Number
127475
Date Published
1988
Length
37 pages
Annotation
This analysis of common rationales for the adversary system of justice in the United States concludes that despite the weaknesses of common arguments supporting it, the system should be retained for pragmatic reasons, just as West Germany should retain its inquisitorial system.
Abstract
Supporters of the adversary system argue that it is the best way of determining trust and defending litigants' legal rights and that it is intrinsically good in that it grants every litigant a voice in the legal process and establishes valuable attorney-client relationships. These arguments are questionable, but the system should be retained because it works as well as any system, some adjudicatory system is necessary, and changing the system would be traumatic. In the German system, the presiding judge absorbs the role of the lawyers, makes many decisions regarding witnesses and the charges, and asks most of the questions. Few exclusionary rules exist. German students learn law from the standpoint of the judge and receive set fees regardless of a case's outcome. This system is more efficient, competent, and professional than the American system. For pragmatic reasons, each country should keep its current system. Footnotes