Long Passage Single Practice Question No. 1 of 1
There are two major systems of criminal procedure in
the modern world ?the adversarial and the
inquisitorial. The former is associated with common
law tradition and the latter with civil law tradition.
Both systems were historically preceded by the system
of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime
fashioned his own remedy and administered it
privately, either personally or through an agent. The
vengeance system was a system of self-help, the
essence of which was captured in the slogan ?an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.? The modern
adversarial system is only one historical step removed
from the private vengeance system and still retains
some of its characteristic features. Thus, for example,
even though the right to institute criminal action has
now been extended to all members of society and even
though the police department has taken over the
pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the
prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the
defendant to conduct his own pretrial investigation.
The trial is still viewed as a duel between two
adversaries, refereed by a judge who, at the beginning
of the trial has no knowledge of the investigative
background of the case. In the final analysis the
adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes
and regularizes the punitive combat.
By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins
historically where the adversarial system stopped its
development. It is two historical steps removed from
the system of private vengeance. Therefore, from the
standpoint of legal anthropology, it is historically
superior to the adversarial system. Under the
inquisitorial system the public investigator has the
duty to investigate not just on behalf of the prosecutor
but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the
public prosecutor has the duty to present to the court
not only evidence that may lead to the conviction of
the defendant but also evidence that may lead to his
exoneration. This system mandates that both parties
permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their
possession. Finally, in an effort to make the trial less
like a duel between two adversaries, the inquisitorial
system mandates that the judge take an active part in
the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both
directive and protective.
Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial
system. This system operates on the philosophical
premise that in a criminal case the crucial factor is
not the legal rule but the facts of the case and that
the goal of the entire procedure is to experimentally
recreate for the court the commission of the alleged
crime.
According to the passage, the inquisitorial system differs from the adversarial system in that
coupons for drugs
site coupons for prescription drugs
- it does not make the defendant solely responsible for gathering evidence for his case
- it does not require the police department to work on behalf of the prosecution
- it does not allow the victim the satisfaction of private vengeance
- it requires the prosecution to drop a weak case
- a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system