what are the benefits of the adversarial system of justice?
408801
"The Adversarial System:  Benefits of this system include the clear division of labour among the participants such as the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and judge.  Also, that as much evidence as possible is looked at in each case and thirdly, the legitimacy of the program is promoted through the appearance of fairness of the system and neutrality of the judge.  Limits of this system are that the adversarial principles can be ignored or negotiated during the daily activities of the court,  time can become a factor since each side is trying to present enough evidence to win their case and delays can occur at each step.  Our system is not a pure adversarial system.  The court’s higher duty of seeing that justice is done is reflected in the fact that the Crown has an obligation to disclose all relevant evidence even after the trial has begun."
435811
Advantage - if prosecutors purposefully or accidentally made a mistake, they can release the guy from jail.  They can't, however, un-dead him.\n\nAdvantage - Imposing a life sentence is cheaper (even counting the cost of incarceration) than imposing the death sentence.\n\nAdvantage - If you don't execute the person, you don't have to turn someone on the state payroll into a murderer.\n\nAdvantage - Life inmates can work.  Death row inmates are not allowed to work.
536815
It used to be called "Zealous Advocacy" in the ethical codes.\n\nThe basic idea is that the legal system is adversarial, and that truth is best found when opposing learned individuals vigorously advocate their respective sides of the argument.\n\nThe 6th Amendment also guarantees assistance of counsel, which has been interpreted as effective assistance. Since the prosecutor is likely to be vigorous in seeking conviction (given the nature of the adversarial system), the defense must be equally vigorous.
943742
Lawyers are officers of the court and support the system - the Constitution - and ensure the process works.   Lawyers do not let bad people out into the community.  The Constitution has a process where the guilt or innocence of a defendant can be determined.  If an accused is not convicted, not charged, etc., then the adversarial process has "let them out."  The government's lawyers will zealously represent the government and do what it can to charge and convict while the defense attorney must zealously represent their client's interests.  Lawyers do know the difference between "bad people and good people," but that is irrelevant.  In the US, every individual is entitled to legal representation.  \n\nImagine if you were arrested for watching that movie because it is a crime to watch criminal dramas and popular opinion was people who watch those movies should go to jail.  Now imagine the government throwing everything it had to ensure you go to jail.  Alternatively, imagine you are accused of being a pedophile and are arrested/charged, but you really are just a sweet person who has been wrongfully accused.  Should lawyers not represent you because you're a bad person?\n\nThe world is only black and white if you pretend it is.
1116597
We began this chapter's investigation of distributive justice in order to consider the claim that a state more extensive than the minimal state could be Justified on the grounds that it was necessary, or the most appropriate instrument, to achieve distributive justice. According to the entitlement conception of justice in holdings that we have presented, there is no argument based upon the first two principles of distributive justice, the principles of acquisition and of transfer, for such a more extensive state. If the set of holdings is properly generated, there is no argument for a more extensive state based upon distributive justice. (Nor, we have claimed, will the Lockean proviso actually provide occasion for a more extensive state.) If, however, these principles are violated, the principle of rectification comes into play. Perhaps it is best to view some patterned principles of distributive justice as rough rules of thumb meant to approximate the general results of applying the principle of rectification of injustice. For example, lacking much historical information, and assuming (i) that victims of injustice generally do worse than they otherwise would and (2) that those from the least well-off group in the society have the highest probabilities of being the (descendants of) victims of the most serious injustice who are owed compensation by those who benefited from the injustices (assumed to be those better off, though sometimes the perpetrators will be others in the worst-off group), then a rough rule of thumb for rectifying injustices might seem to be the following: organize society so as to maximize the position of whatever group ends up least well-off in the society. This particular example may well be implausible, but an important question for each society will be the following: given its particular history, what operable rule of thumb best approximates the results of a detailed application in that society of the principle of rectification? These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would be to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them.
862220
Another one of the posters had it right when they sprinkled their answers with dollar signs. It is absolutely about how much money you have and how high priced of an attorney you can afford to hire. For example, there was that real estate tycoon (can't remember his name) who killed either 1-2 people. He hired that famous Wyoming lawyer and got off. Do you think a guy from the hood, only being able to afford a public defender, is going to get the same justice?\n\nHaving seen the criminal justice system in action  this is what I see: The person commits the offense, the DA piles the charges, knowing that all those charges won't stick, but they want to get it down to the offense in which the person did commit will stick. The plea bargain goes into play in which the defendant, facing months or years more in jail than they deserve, pleas to the offense and gets the appropriate punishment.\n\nEveryone is so against plea bargaining, but if it were banned and all defendants went through a jury trial, the criminal justice system would absolutely ground to a halt! There is no way the system could handle that many cases. The system wants plea bargains, because it makes the job easier. It's also enormously expensive to run jury trials for every single case presented before the court. \n\nObviously, there have been innocent people convicted. The Innocence Project has freed nearly 150 people jailed by eyewitness identification or police interrogation, only to prove usually years later through DNA that the person isn't guilty. There are undoubtedly many more people in prison for crimes they didn't commit..\n\nThere are also undoubtedly people in prison for crimes they pled guilty to, but are actually not guilty of the crime in which they pled guilty. (I know of one such person, although they are out of prison now.) Here is how this is played out - the defendant must rely on a public defender, the DA piles charges, they negotiate down, take a guilty plea with the promise of much reduced sentences, but life if found guilty at trial by jury. The person tries to cut their losses by pleading guilty so they're not stuck in prison for life.
521170
Do you mean like no murder, no abuse, no rape, etc? I guess the only disadvantage I could think of would be that jobs such as police officers, psychiatrists, and other people who make money in helping those who are subjected to violence wouldn't be needed as much, and some people would loose their jobs. It'd be a risk I'm willing to take though, if it meant a safer world.
953682
Advantages\nYou can catch a culprit\nYou can release a wrongly blamed person\nYou can find cures for diseases\nYou can judge the nature of culprits and prevent further wrongdoings\n\nDisadvantages\nYou can keep a record of private activites of an individual\nGender bias, racism etc
339079
I'll leave the benefits to everyone else.  \n\nMy problem with the drawbacks is the fact that depending on where you live, you are more likely to get a jury of your ignorant, white trash neighbors than a jury of your peers.  In my state, every jury I have seen sleeps through most of the trial, and I am sure has NO IDEA what the lawyer is talking about.  And regardless of the questionaires, etc., I refuse to believe that juries (again, atleast in my state) put their own prejudices and feeling aside when deciding on the case.\n\nDid I mention I live in the deep south?  I love where I live, but intelligence is few and far between, esp when it comes to jurors.
945870
pros and cons... the pros of it  (to some points of views) would be that it can help lower terrorist activity.. to some extent. drug activity and some gangs as well. to some level... But for every reaction there is a equal and opposite... and the equal to this is that people can figure out ways to manipulate monitoring activity. the cons... it interferes with property. personal property. regulations. privacy, etc.
559084
No.  You don't defeat the enemy by becoming the enemy, you don't spread democracy abroad by curtailing it at home, you don't pledge liberty and justice for all and then add "except for the following...", because then any of us could end up on that list.  Our justice system is and has always been stronger than any one criminal, and if they're truly guilty we lose nothing by giving them the protections of law--they'll be convicted anyway, and our reputation for true justice will be even greater.  If we rig the system, as most countries do, we may get revenge--but our moral authority will be lost.  As it has already begun to be...
88231
Their purpose is to reduce the unfairness of defending actions after a substantial period of time has elapsed. With the passage of time, memories fade and documents are lost. A defendant will have greater difficulty defending a lawsuit 10 or 15 years after an event than within 2 or 3 years.
105236
Pros: Crime rate goes down.\n\nCons: If your a bad guy, you don't know who is carrying and who is not.
580762
There is a fine line between justice and revenge, but it's a clear line.\n\nWhen somebody is wronged, it is not the responsibility of the one who was wronged to execute justice.  Someone else should do that.  When you take revenge for yourself you are likely to do it in anger, which can cloud your judgment.\n\nThis is why we have the justice system in place.  It is why a judge must recuse (disqualify) himself from a case if he is involved in it.  Justice is, indeed, blind.  Revenge is, in turn, hazy.
1077824
Yes, police are given a certain amount of discretion in circumstances where it benefits the "greater good" to do so. Sometimes it just isn't worth it to use time and energy to enforce laws that are relatively less important than other, more pressing ones. For example, police in areas with high rates of violent and drug-related crimes will not waste their time arresting someone for littering.  \n\nThis is used by other members of law enforcement such as Distirict Attorneys and prosecutors, who use their discretion to "grease" the wheels of justice and reduce court costs for taxpayers. For example, prosecutors are allowed to give passes to certain criminals in exchange for information and testimony leading to the conviction of larger, more dangerous criminals.
924459
The advantage is obviously getting access to info on criminal activity that would otherwise not be available but the downside is the immunity that so often is traded for the info provided by these informants.  Sometimes it's too big a price to pay.
635583
It is a deterrent.\n\nor\n\nIt is cheaper than keeping those folks in prison for life\n\nor\n\nEye-for-eye, they should 'pay' for their crime with something equal like their life.