Adversarial vs Inquisitorial

The debate constitutes finding out the guilt or innocence of a party in the case. Somehow, the adversarial system entails few merits and disadvantages as well. The first of the two advantages is that the judge reserves the right to comment until the two parties exhaust their arguments on presented evidence. The second advantage is that such an opportunity accorded to the judge makes his or her role appear neutral. The system requires the judge to preserve judgement until after completion of scrutiny of evidence. Brooks identifies demerits including among others the process of gathering evidence is a responsibility of the two parties in the case. In most cases, they are not equal. Similarly, the two parties in the case only present evidence favourable to the case they hold. The inquisitorial system of justice is the commonest procedure of approach in many civil jurisdictions. The system involves the judge in preparing evidence along with the support of the police. The judge also plays a role in determining ways through which the case would appear in court. The legal jargon for the prosecutor is then Crown. The definition leads to the Crown representing the people of Canada. On the other hand, the defence lawyer is the advocate for the accused.
The function of the judge should centre on finding the truth by perusing presented evidence proving either the innocence or guilt of one of the parties. As opposed to being a referee and an arbiter like in the adversarial system, the judge in the inquisitorial system takes the roles of both the prosecutor and judge. Over the past few years, other countries applying the adversarial system continue to make greater steps compared to Canada in incorporating inquisitors into their systems. Other countries in Europe including France apply the inquisitorial system. The system tackles the determination of guilt or innocence in a different manner. Because, other users continue to incorporate inquisitors is reason enough