Originally posted by eljefejesusPerhaps. To a certain extent. But any suggestion that "competition" invariably leads to "truth" is a fallacy. It's a fallacy that leads to injustices and errors in all walks of life. Economics, for example.
Adversarial allows competition of ideas and which makes more sense.
Originally posted by kmax87In the accusatorial system, as far as I know, the judge controls the procedure. Therefore the lawyers have less incentive to grandstand, waste time, twist facts outrageously and so on. It seems more efficient from that perspective.
do either claim to produce a consistently more 'just' result?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo as long as you can't buy off your judges and they show a reasonable degree of competence and consistency then alls well. At least its not dependent on the money you can cough up for your defense....
In the accusatorial system, as far as I know, the judge controls the procedure. Therefore the lawyers have less incentive to grandstand, waste time, twist facts outrageously and so on. It seems more efficient from that perspective.
Is innocence presumed under either system?