June 26th, 2014
Adversary System The adversary system can best be described as the basis of our system. According to USlegal.com, “ this system is used across the U.S in which the parties to a case develop and present their arguments, gather and submit evidence, call and question witnesses, and, generally control the information presented according to the law and legal process, (Adversarial System Law & Legal Definition).” The basic outline of the system is that each party or side attempts to win his or her case. Within this system the right side does not always win.
Continental System or ‘Civil Law’ Method
The continental system or the civil law method has a bit of a different approach to legalities. According to dictionary.com civil law can be defined as, “the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters,(Dictionary.com).”In simpler terms, civil law is a search for the truth.
Which system do you think is more effective and why? The adversary system and continental system both have several advantages and disadvantages. To begin, the adversary system gives each side the chance to properly present their own case. While the continental system revolves around a responsibility to the system, therefore in the continental system each side may not be able to appropriately present their case. The adversary system also allows for the encouragement of open and frank communication between parties. It also allows for the attorney to properly represent their client’s interest without the client fearing that the information will be used against them. Within the continental system the communication is more lackadaisical. The continental system is aimed at finding the truth therefore the information that is shared between the client and attorney may not be confidential. The continental system is revolved around the search of the truth. In this system the parties are not as vested in winning or obtaining client’s interests as the attorneys are about finding the truth.
I believe the adversary system is more effective than the civil law method. Overall the adversary system advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The adversary system revolves around an atmosphere of trust and reliance, protect communication, and allow efficient and open communication. Communication is key in many court case because without trust and communication the client would not be upfront with information pertaining to the case.
Do you see any constitutional problems with applying the civil law system to the U.S.? The most crucial constitional problem revolves around the 6th Amendment, the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury. If the attorney a client hires is constantly sharing information with opposing counsel then the trial is not fair and therefore the client loses trust in their attorney as well as starts with holding information. In civil law cases there is no need for a jury because both parties are seeking out the truth therefore the truth determines the outcome. The other constitutional problem revolves around the 5th amendment. The client's right to testify is not in the constitution. But according to the courts; it is an inference based off of the 5th amendment that states that you have the right to remain silent but also implies that you have the right to not remain silent. By implicating civil law, the client may not be given the right…