The Adversarial System vs. The Inquisitorial System Yan Yu, Nankai University, School of Law Different  legal  systems  in  different  countries   The  Adversarial  System  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  common  law  countries   The  Inquisitorial  System  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  civil  law  countries     Globaliza?on  is  the  big  issue  in  modern  policy            The  obvious  consequence  is  that  knowledge  of  the  law  of       jurisdic?ons  out  of  one’s  home  is  no  longer  reserved  to   compara?ve  lawyers.            The  less  obvious  consequence  is  that  the  role,  the  analysis,   the  legal  ethics,  a  lot  of  things  of  the  law  are  no  longer   tenable  in  their  tradi?onal  forms.     Interes?ng  and  controversial Concepts  and  the  comparisons   Ethical  founda?ons      “the  role  of  aJorney  in  adversarial  system”      “the  comparison  with  the  inquisitorial  system”      “a  history  of  Chinese  inquisitorial  system”     Cases   Gideon  v.  Wainwright   The  Simpson  Murder  Case   The  Liu  Kaili  Case Concepts  and  Comparisons   Concepts   The  adversary  system  means  a  system  arrives  at  a  decision   by  having  each  side  to  a  dispute  present  its  best  opinion   and  then  permiPng  a  neutral  decision-­‐maker  to  determine   the  facts  and  apply  the  law  in  light  of  the  opposing   presenta?ons  of  the  two  sides.       An  inquisitorial  system  is  a  legal  system  where  the  court  or   a  part  of  the  court  is  ac?vely  involved  in  inves?ga?ng  the   facts  of  the  case. Comparisons     legal  premise        The  adversary  system:  par?san  advocacy  by  the  two  opposing   sides  will  best  lead  to  the  determina?on  of  truth        The  inquisitorial  system:  the  truth  is  best  discovered  through  a   disinterested  inquiry  conducted  by  a  magistrate     Judge        In  adversarial  system:  referee  between  the  defence  and  the   prosecutor        In  inquisitorial  system:  fact-­‐finder,  busy     declare  verdict        In  adversarial  system:  jury,  half  secret        In  inquisitorial  system:  judge,  open Produce  evidence        In  adversarial  system:  the  defendant  and  the  prosecutor        In  inquisitorial  system:  the  judge     Pro-­‐inquisitorial  system        control  lies  more  in  the  hands  of  the  judges;  reduces  the   disturbance  of  the  aJorneys     Pro-­‐adversary  system        equal  opportunity  to  present  opinion;  fairness;  maintain   public  confidence        EviJs  v.  Lucey  (1985)  “The  very  premise  of  our  adversary   system  of  criminal  jus?ce  is  that  par?san  advocacy  on  both   sides  of  a  case  will  best  promote  the  ul?mate  objec?ve  that   the  guilty  be  convicted  and  the  innocent  go  free.” Ethical  Founda?on     Adversarial  system:  the  role  of  the  counsel       A  brief  history   • The  adversary  system  developed  as  England  moved  from  a   rural  to  a  more  urbanized  society.     • When  the  jury  system  was  ini?ally  established,  jurors  were   usually  persons  who  could  decide  disputes  based  on  their   first-­‐hand  knowledge.   • As  English  society  became  more  urbanized,  a  method  had  to   be  developed  for  presen?ng  the  facts  to  the  jury.   • The  structure  of  the  trial  changed  un?l  the  adversary  system   predominated. The  role  of  the  counsel     “the  counsel’s  duty  leads  to  the  exculpa1on  of  the   guilty  through  the  use  of  games”  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  Evan   WhiJon     Cons?tu?onal  right  to  have  the  assistance  of   counsel.  the  Sixth  Amendment  to  the  Cons?tu?on    the  Fourteenth  Amendment  -­‐  Due  Process  Clause the  Sixth  Amendment  to  the  Cons?tu?on   “[i]n  all  criminal  prosecu?ons,  the  accused  shall   enjoy  the  right  .  .  .  to  have  the  Assistance  of   Counsel  for  his  defence.”       the  Fourteenth  Amendment  further  states,  “nor   shall  any  state  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or   property,  without  due  process  of  law.” BeJs  v.  Brady,  316  U.S.  455,  (1942)       “In  the  light  of  this  common  law  prac?ce,  it  is  evident  that   the  cons?tu?onal  provisions  to  the  effect  that  a  defendant   should  be  ‘allowed’  counsel  or  should  have  a  right  ‘to  be   heard  by  himself  and  his  counsel’,  or  that  he  might  be   heard  by  ‘either  or  both’,  at  his  elec?on,  were  intended  to   do  away  with  the  rules  which  denied  representa?on,  in   whole  or  in  part,  by  counsel  in  criminal  prosecu?ons,  but   were  not  aimed  to  compel  the  state  to  provide  counsel  for   a  defendant.”