英语论文网

Comparison of the investigation and the trial in the inquisitorial and the adversarial systems

Which is the more important phase of the criminal justice process — the investigation or the trial? 
The roles of the investigation and the trial are of significant difference from the inquisitorial systems to the adversarial. The investigation is of paramount importance in the continental criminal justice systems. On the contrast, the trial, rather than the investigation, plays a primary role in the Anglophone systems. The main reason for the dissimilarity would probably lie in the essential philosophy divergence of the two systems. For the civil law systems, the pursuit of the truth is of the priority concern, while the protection of the accused rights for the counter side . This would be mainly manifested in the variation in the functions of the investigation and the trial and the roles of the judge, prosecutor, accused and experts in both systems.
A. The function of the investigation and the trial
(i) The investigation
(ii) The trial
B. The roles of the judge, prosecutor, accused and experts
(i) The judge
In the inquisitorial systems, the task of the judge would mainly focus on the command of whole trial process and production of evidence . In this sense, the judge may more or less act as a film director, who would guide the prosecutor, defence counsel, defendant, witness and the other players to go through the whole trial according to the dossier, the production of the investigation. In contrast, the judge in the adversarial systems may generally function like a soccer referee between the players, the prosecutor and defence counsel, ruling on the goal, that is, the admissibility of the evidences which are adduced by the two parties. The winner of the trial will remain unknown until the end of the match.
(ii) The prosecutor
  The role of the prosecutor in the civil law systems may be primarily manifested in the supervision or dominance during the investigation phase , while in the adversarial systems, the prosecutor would be the one of the two main players of the trial.
(iii) The accused
In the continental systems, the accused, to some extent, would be probably no more than a source of information for the ultimate purpose of the pursuit of truth. On the contrary, considering the protection of the accused rights, the adversarial prosecutor would have to prove the guilty of the accused without any compulsory assistance from the accused . The accused in the Anglophone systems is one of the main players at the trial, who would enjoy the rights as equal as the prosecution in presentation and cross-examination of evidence. Accordingly, the presumption of innocence may be more clearly demonstrated at the adversarial trial.
(iv) The experts
In the civil law systems, impartiality and neutrality of the experts are of paramount importance to the common endeavor of establishing the truth. The testimony made by the expert witnesses at the trial would be simply the confirmation of their written reports in the investigation . Conversely, in the common law systems, the experts would always be expected to be tendentious by presentation of the expertise at the trial to serve the respective party’s interest rather than the truth .
C. Some possible importations in both sides
  In fact, as stated by We本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。