answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Advesarial judicial system and inquisitorial
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What is the explanation for the adversarial system and inquisitorial system?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.


What is different between inquisitorial system and adverserial system?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.


What is the difference between an inquisitorial system and an adversarial system?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.


Is there a plaintiff in the inquisitorial system of justice?

In the inquisitorial system of justice, there is typically no distinction between a plaintiff and a prosecutor as seen in the adversarial system. Instead, the judge oversees the investigation and collection of evidence, with input from both the prosecution and defense.


Who has the onus of proof in the inquisitorial system?

Nobody


Differences between inquisitorial and adversarial system?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries


What are the distinguishing factors between inquisitorial and adversarial system?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.


Why choose the inquisitorial system?

It is faster and more private


What are the advantages of the inquisitorial system?

Some advantages of the inquisitorial system include the active role of the judge in investigating and establishing the truth, potentially leading to more comprehensive evidence collection. It can also result in faster resolution of cases due to the judge's involvement in managing the proceedings. Additionally, it is designed to ensure fairness and protect the rights of the accused by actively seeking out exculpatory evidence.


What are the major differences between the adversary and inquisitorial systems of justice?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries .


What alternatives to the adversarial system can you envision?

I guess the alternative would be the inquisitorial system, used mostly in continental Europe. The system in the USA is the adversarial system, where the lawyers from both sides run the show. In the inquisitorial system, the judges are much more involved at trials, and ask most of the questions.


What is the differences between the adversarial system and the inquisitorial systems of trial?

The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.