Adversary Trial Process
Similar in the unfair nature of its trial by combat ancestor, the adversary trial process is weak in its pursuit of lawfulness compared to Europe's inquisitional system. Adversary process is a system of justice, supervised by a judge, where opposing parties present evidence to an impartial jury through a process of questioning witnesses. This system, however, creates too much human involvement to truly represent a system of justice. The word "adversary" means opponent or enemy and connotes the Devil. In a perfect courtroom, human involvement would be irrelevant. True determination of guilt would overcome any minor injustices created by the competitive trial, impartial jury, or uninvolved judge. However, far from being the just system of the perfect courtroom, the adversary trial process does not provide for realistically fair trials due to its harsh competitive nature (leading to violations of evidence submission), potential for biased juries, and possible subjective judging. Lawyers performing in an adversary trial often act unfairly. As evidence is to be viewed by unprofessional jurors rather than clergymen, evidence must follow strict guidelines for submission into a trial. Hearsay, or evidence based on the reports of others
When faced with the contradictory sides of the case, he asked, "Am I never to hear the truth" to which the counsel replied, "No, my lord, merely the evidence. " Though there is a system to avoid selection of biased jurors, the innermost workings of the human mind can never fully be anticipated. Ten jurors were women, and two were men. This unfair judging leads to the dissipation of fairness in American courtrooms, as those involved become more concerned with the time and money of a trial, than the justice being served. As judges are simply overseers in the trial process, the system allows for plea-bargaining, a process where the defendant pleads guilty for a lesser sentence in exchange for out of court settlement. This disregard of the judging code of conduct could understandably go uncontested as in courtroom hierarchy, the judge is the supreme human power. Simpson's similarities with his jury connected them. Simpson's final jury was composed of nine black, one Hispanic, and two white individuals. Often times jurors want to free someone of their race or gender. In his Practical Guide to Evidence (as cited by Wikipedia encyclopedia), Peter Murphy reflects a judge's disgust with the then young trial process's disregard of truth. Though the NMRA states "A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it," and "A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law," judges, like all humans, can be biased and unfair to either side of a case. Unfortunately, in this unfair system, when rulings are made by neutral arbiters, judges are often found to abuse their authority. Evidence illegally obtained is also not admissible to a trial.
Common topics in this essay:
,
Glen King,
Peter Murphy,
OJ Simpson's,
Democrats Five,
Nine Simpson's,
Guide Evidence,
trial process,
adversary trial,
adversary trial process,
human involvement,
system justice,
process system,
perfect courtroom,
impartial jury,
competitive nature,
oj simpson's,
uninvolved judge,
|
Acceptance Essays
