Adversarial...

[Blansky]

For most of us our TV watching is spent on some form of criminal drama that ends up in court and we watch the drama play out in an adversarial and confrontational manner.

Essentially the prosecution and the defense spin a yarn to the jury and the jury decides which yarn they like better. In each case the yarn could be total BS, or the jury may like one lawyer better than the other.

But people's lives hang in the balance and we all know of cases where the jury got it terribly wrong, either by police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct or the prosecution or defense spun a better yarn. Or of course there's jury nullification where the jury decides someone may be guilty, but they refuse to find then guilty.

We watch a lot of European TV and in some of those countries the Judge is in charge of the investigation, not the police. That system is called Inquisitorial.

Since so much of life these days seems adversarial, I got me wondering if the constant adversarial relationships in public life are due to our entire concept of dealing with each other and could it be due to our adoption of the adversarial system from British Common Law.

Here's a link to the two systems...https://4legalenglish.com/legal-theo...y-differences/

I wonder what the lawyers here think?

[THC]

You better call Saul

[austinp]

I don’t think actual life is very adversarial. At least mine isn’t. More of a gas lighting by media to make it seem that way. I think things are better for more people in the world than ever before. These are the best times in my opinion. It is entertaining to watch people argue on TV though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

There is no shortage of adversarial behavior in countries that have alternative structural systems of law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[~JJ]

Grass is always greener on the other side. The US media loves to point out what’s working in other countries, but it always comes across as a one sided story and they never share any cons.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by ~JJ

Grass is always greener on the other side. The US media loves to point out what’s working in other countries, but it always comes across as a one sided story and they never share any cons.

Actually there wasn't any media that was pointing anything out.

It was me wondering after watching European criminal justice TV shows, began to ponder if structuring legal proceedings and legals interactions as adversarial creates an element of the only way to achieve consensus/justice/results, is a system of adversarial sides.

I think in divorce cases in the US couples can actually choose a different method of adjudicating settlements, rather than the usual scorched earth winner take all mentality.

Just me pondering. And most Americans probably have no idea that there are other ways different first world country's legal systems work.

[~JJ]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Actually there wasn't any media that was pointing anything out.

It was me wondering after watching European criminal justice TV shows, began to ponder if structuring legal proceedings and legals interactions as adversarial creates an element of the only way to achieve consensus/justice/results, is a system of adversarial sides.

I think in divorce cases in the US couples can actually choose a different method of adjudicating settlements, rather than the usual scorched earth winner take all mentality.

Just me pondering. And most Americans probably have no idea that there are other ways different first world country's legal systems work.

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that from your post. It’s more of an observation of headlines I see and seemed on subject… this country has no homeless and here’s x reason why as an example.

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by austinp

I don’t think actual life is very adversarial. At least mine isn’t. More of a gas lighting by media to make it seem that way. I think things are better for more people in the world than ever before. These are the best times in my opinion. It is entertaining to watch people argue on TV though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ditto except I’m so sick of arguing I actively try to avoid it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by ~JJ

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that from your post. It’s more of an observation of headlines I see and seemed on subject… this country has no homeless and here’s x reason why as an example.

No problem. Watching a few of the shows from France and Italy I think, it got me wondering how it worked with the Judge/Magistrate going out and investigating with the police and then calling people in to question them on events etc.

So I found the site in the link that talked about the Adversarial vs Inquisitional systems, which I really hadn't realized there were radically different systems.

Canada has a system much like the British with Barristers and Solicitors but still an adversarial system but different courtroom setups.

Which got me thinking....

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by Blansky

For most of us our TV watching is spent on some form of criminal drama that ends up in court and we watch the drama play out in an adversarial and confrontational manner.

Essentially the prosecution and the defense spin a yarn to the jury and the jury decides which yarn they like better. In each case the yarn could be total BS, or the jury may like one lawyer better than the other.

But people's lives hang in the balance and we all know of cases where the jury got it terribly wrong, either by police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct or the prosecution or defense spun a better yarn. Or of course there's jury nullification where the jury decides someone may be guilty, but they refuse to find then guilty.

We watch a lot of European TV and in some of those countries the Judge is in charge of the investigation, not the police. That system is called Inquisitorial.

Since so much of life these days seems adversarial, I got me wondering if the constant adversarial relationships in public life are due to our entire concept of dealing with each other and could it be due to our adoption of the adversarial system from British Common Law.

Here's a link to the two systems...https://4legalenglish.com/legal-theo...y-differences/

I wonder what the lawyers here think?

This is going to be naive so I apologize.

My views of how the legal system should work is all (every single one, nothing withheld from the jury unless it actively went against your constitutional right) of the facts that can be proven as fact through evidence should be laid before the jury of 12 to decide. The jury should decide the guilt and the judge decide the trial.

I don’t believe anything should be public record until an outcome from the trial. This would eliminate the need for sequestering juries or suppressing evidence and appeals because it would quell the media. Many people have had their lives destroyed by “social justice” before they’ve even been convicted of a crime. We are supposed to be presumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

A classic.

[Rock]

My observation is that the whole 'Court process' is very haphazzard and unpredictable.
Police investigation is often lazy and incompetent and the prosecution effort lacklustre.
Juries (in my experience) are often comprised of the people who are unable to find a reason to be excused and in way over their heads. I have been on Juries that simply could not comprehend "Beyond reasonable doubt". I have served on cases where the only 'evidence' was the statements of the protagonists and there was nothing that could reasonably be recognised as 'fact'. i have seen some deeply mediocre 'defence' mounted by Barristers whose mind was clearly elsewhere.
I would not trust in the professionalism, impartiality and expertise of a Judge in an 'inquisitorial' system, and never in one who was elected to the position.
There is probably a lot that could be done to improve the 'adversarial' system but the immense pressure of a backlog of cases in the Courts system means that improvements would inevitably slow the system even more. "Swift justice is good justice".

[m j b]

I've only attended three trials, once as a juror, once as a witness/victim and the third was a juvenile "hearing" of which the less said the better.

My takeaway is that it's amazing that anything actually gets accomplished, and the amount of effort and cost in prosecuting someone in this country is truly staggering.

[Bazil]

I watched Columbo and still do ..
Columbo is the best ..
His evidence had more holes than Swiss cheese ..
I don’t care, Columbo was awesome ..
Nothing to do with courts or courtroom drama, but I don’t care .. Columbo was and still is the best ..

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Bazil

I watched Columbo and still do ..
Columbo is the best ..
His evidence had more holes than Swiss cheese ..
I don’t care, Columbo was awesome ..
Nothing to do with courts or courtroom drama, but I don’t care .. Columbo was and still is the best ..

Columbo is the best detective show ever made, period.

Only problem is that I’ve seen every episode so many times now, I don’t have much of an appetite to watch it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AzPaul]

Originally Posted by Bazil

I watched Columbo and still do ..
Columbo is the best ..
His evidence had more holes than Swiss cheese ..
I don’t care, Columbo was awesome ..
Nothing to do with courts or courtroom drama, but I don’t care .. Columbo was and still is the best ..

Loved Columbo. It was the best. But it amazed me how often at the end of the show he was walking around with the key piece of evidence in his pocket.