The adversary system of law plays pivotal roles in the judicial system. According to Kagan (2000), “adversary system is a unique legal system in which, two advocates represent their clients’ positions before an impartial jury, whose mandate is to determine the exact truth of the presented case.” (p. 14). This is in complete opposite of the inquisitorial system, which has judges mandated to thoroughly investigate the case. The adversary system is mainly practiced in United States among other countries. This paper expounds on the main reasons why adversary system of law is a necessity to produce just results.
Adversary system enables thorough scrutiny of the whole case before making any decisions. During this system, the two parties to a particular case present their arguments and evidence that aid in unraveling the truth. Moreover, the parties have opportunities to call as well as question witnesses and generally have control of diverse information presented during the legal process. Thus, all sides are able to present their cases enabling equal hearing before judgment. This enables in presenting a just case.
Due to the fact the, adversary system involves impartial persons mostly a jury mandated to determine the truth, the judgment passed is just and befitting. As the jury is composed of independent persons who are not under influence of any person, the truth determined is devoid of bias or discrimination, As a result, the system is able to deliver just results as the judgment passed by the jury is not prejudiced.
In addition, the system allows the affected parties to call their witnesses and question them before the jury. This is paramount as it aids in unraveling the whole truth in the cases. Within the unique confines of the legal system, the parties are able to control the legal process as they present their arguments in an open manner enabling easy comprehension of the facts in a particular case. As proponents of this system argue, the adversary system allows limited room for the nation to be discriminative or biased against the defendants (Doyle & Haydock , 1991). In addition, the system allows majority of the private litigants to uniquely settle their disputes in amicable manners through pre-trial; as well as discovery settlements in which, agreement of non-contested facts is accomplished and hence they are not dealt with as trial process continues. This provides an easy wait of providing justice in the legal system.