When Somebody Deviates from Normal Behavior and Decides to Commit a Crime

When somebody deviates from normal behavior and decides to commit a crime, they must suffer the consequences. Luckily in our society, there are consequences for these actions and the law holds people accountable. These consequences are well known and if a person commits a crime, they are aware of their actions. They know that they will have to pay these consequences through the criminal justice system. This keeps society predictable and that is one goal that needs to be reached in order to live in a world without fear. The relationship between the adversarial and inquisitorial justice systems is one that is complex. Both the adversarial and inquisitorial systems have their benefits but also have their downsides as well. The adversarial system is the system that is currently being used in North America and other common law countries across the world use it as well. This system was originated in the United Kingdom. The prosecutors and the defense not only state the facts of the case but they also state their theories of the crime to a neutral judge and jury. This process can be considered open competition between the prosecution and the defense. Throughout this adversarial process, there is a strict policy on witness examination and the presentation of evidence. Both the defense and the prosecutors can bring in experts in a particular field of their choice for questioning. The point of this is for the judge and jury to hear from this expert. This is simply helping either the prosecution or defense build their case. Since both the judge and jury are neutral, they must deliberate and wait to make a decision until all facts of the case have been presented. Once this has occurred, both the judge and jury should know without a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. The inquisitorial system is one that is much different and is commonly used in European countries. Just like the adversarial system is used in common law countries, the inquisitional system is used in civil law countries. The judge plays a much more active role in the inquisitorial system and is questioning the accused about the crime rather than the prosecution. The judge also conducts an independent investigation and the goal of this investigation is to determine the truth that is in question. Unlike the adversarial system, where there are potential plea bargains that can be presented, there are not any in the inquisitorial system. The point of a plea deal is to get the accused to plead guilty however the accused gets something in return such as lesser jail time. One major difference between the two systems is the inquisitorial system is believes that you are guilty until proven that you haven’t committed the crime while with the adversarial system, you are innocent until you are proven guilty. In this paper, it will be proven that it is much more beneficial for Canada’s legal system to stay with the adversarial system. This argument will be strengthened by the work of Neil Brooks and Kent Roach. Also Frank’s fight versus truth theory will strengthen the argument as it addresses the economic problems of justice. This paper will also address the truth in the criminal justice system and how finding the truth is the best for everyone involved. Although one might think that some aspects of the inquisitorial system are beneficial, the adversarial system is much better for society as it provides a much more fair process and the accused has the right to an impartial trial. The accused are obligated to have rights and the court views them as an equal.