Advs & Disadvs of Adversarial System, The Continental System, Civil & Criminal Proceedings

The primary function is to find out the truth, not merely to decide which party has adduced better evidence.

The judge remains passive, as the litigants bear the final responsibility for commencing proceedings, defining the issues in dispute, gathering facts for presentation as evidence, and generally conducting the case through successive stages of litigation.

In the Continental system, the judge plays a much more active role, with the chief function being to find out the truth rather than merely deciding which party has adduced better evidence.

The person who starts the proceedings is known as the plaintiff, and the person against whom proceedings are taken is known as the defendant.

In the Continental system, a poorly prepared counsel does not hamper the pursuit of justice as much as it would in the Adversarial system.

The system of 'checks and balances' allows counsel to try to persuade a judge to rule a certain way and to appeal judge’s decisions during or after trial.

Counsel determines the specific question in litigation, draws the perimeters of the dispute, and asks supplementary questions to witnesses after the judge has finished interrogating them.

The objectives of civil proceedings are to establish the liability of the defendant/respondent to compensate the plaintiff or to perform or not to perform certain acts in relation to the plaintiff/applicant.

No, the state merely provides infrastructure within which the dispute may be resolved and, if necessary, enforces the order or judgment of a court.

Civil proceedings are voluntary in the sense that the aggrieved party is not compelled to commence proceedings.

The onus is on the state to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence as charged.

Poorly prepared judges or counsel could lead to unjust results, and overzealous judges or counsel could violate the law or act unethically to forward their own cause.

The state initiates criminal proceedings on behalf of the citizen against whom the alleged criminal offence has been committed.

The person bringing the application is known as the applicant, and the opposite party is known as the respondent.

One, that the truth is likely to emerge more from bilateral investigation and presentation motivated by self-interest, and two, that the moral force and acceptability of a decision will be greatest when made by an unbiased judge.

Because judges are officially appointed and might not have the same level of personal investment in the case.

To punish the offender in the interest of society and maintain stability and orderliness.

If the defendant chooses not to defend, then judgment will be granted in his absence (default judgment).

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature and its object is to facilitate and not to obstruct the administration of justice.

The objective is to establish whether the accused is guilty of a crime and if so, to impose a penalty.

They are afraid that extensive questioning might appear to be critical of the court.

The search for truth and justice.

The burden of proof in civil proceedings is on a balance of probabilities.

The parties are the state and the accused, with the state prosecuting on behalf of the complainant.

Civil proceedings relate to a dispute between legal subjects and are described as a suit or claim.

Yes, for example, if A assaults B, B may lodge criminal charges against A for assault and also institute civil proceedings to claim compensation for damages.

The judge advances the course of the proceedings, conducts the hearings, interrogates witnesses and experts, can appoint his own experts, and is heavily involved in document production.