In criminal law, an adversary system can be defined as the system that primarily relies on opposing sides’ skill to present their position on the issue in question from which the truth is expected to crop up. This system is quite fair since it is not as vulnerable to abuse as other legal systems like the inquisitional approach. Among the reasons why it is necessary for the production of just results is the use of judges who present issues in a meaningful manner, the freedom given to opposing parties to present their issues as well as the strict rules used in the process of determining whether the evidence presented is genuine.
According to (Randolph, 2003), an adversary system is a constituent in the larger system of law and is normally practiced in the process of giving just results. In America as well as in several other countries’ legal systems, the adversary system is highly regarded as an important principle of lawyers. In the operations of adversary systems, truth is determined by having opposing sides presenting their arguments in the strongest way possible to authorities that are supposed to be impartial. One of the reasons why the adversary system is considered necessary in coming up with just results is its influential operational structure and constituent rules which are followed during court proceedings. Normally, the adversary system constitutes judges, lawyers who represent sides that are opposing each other, and rules governing procedures taking place in court. Lawyers representing each side make efforts to ensure that, their sides win the case since lawyers are obligated to their clients and in the process, the arguments culminate to just results. In this case, lawyers who are conversant with law help opposing sides to present their cases in a professional manner which assists the judge to derive the truth from both sides, ruling out accordingly.
Secondly, the adversary system gives each of the opposing parties, equal time and freedom to isolate issues that they support. This freedom allows each party to use the available time to present all evidence available to bring out the truth of the matter and in the process the evidence that contains “the real truth” may eventually come out bringing just results. The freedom also gives an allowance for respect of individual independence which gives opposing sides power to produce valuable evidence for use in making a judgment (Randolph, 2003).
Thirdly, the adversary system is necessary for bringing just results because, the system operates in assumptions that, opposing sides present their evidence to laymen which requires them to be very clear in the issues they bring forth. This makes rules through which opposing sides present evidence to be very strict, which limits cases where evidence may be faked since details are required for the evidence to be used in judgment. However, adjustments are made in cases where one or both sides are not represented by lawyers to allow them present evidence that supports their issues. Another way in which strict rules that are used in adversary systems to assist in bringing just results is the allowance given to the court where it makes implications on a situation where the side that is accused resists subjection to cross-examination. The court may make any conclusion based on its judgment which limits cases where one of the conflicting parties opts to be silent which would hinder truth from being revealed. Also, this limits cases where the judging authority may decide to make negative implications that could not have been arrived at if one had presented issues as they are instead of keeping quiet. Therefore, in the course of presenting issues, the truth is given way through various issues that are realized in the course of arguing. The adversary system is, therefore, very essential in the production of just results because of the ground it presents to conflicting sides to freely present their issues without any hindrances (Janet, 2005).
References
- Janet W. (2005): The civil litigation Process: Emond Montgomery publication pp. 34-36
- Randolph N. (2003): The American Jury system: Yale University Press pp. 10-14