U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Why Have an Adversary System? (From Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study, P 67-103, 1988, David Luban -- See NCJ-127474)

NCJ Number
127475
Author(s)
D Luban
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

Downloads

No download available

Availability