ADVERSARY SYSTEM vs. CIVIL LAW METHOD “The goal of both the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system is to find the truth. But the adversarial system seeks the truth by pitting the parties against each other in the hope that competition will reveal it, whereas the inquisitorial system seeks the truth by questioning those most familiar with the events in dispute. The adversarial system places a premium on the individual rights of the accused, whereas the inquisitorial system places the rights of the accused secondary to the search for truth.” This, taken from a website I found on a comparison of the adversary system vs. the inquisitorial (or civil) system of justice. By definition, theadversary system isthe system of law that relies on the contest between each advocate representing his or her party's positions to an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, trying to determine the truth of the case. By contrast, in the inquisitorial system, the judgeactively steers the search for evidence and questions the witnesses, including the respondent or defendant. Attorneys play a more passive role, suggesting routes of inquiry for the presiding judge and following the judge's questioning with questions of their own. The questioning done by the attorney is often brief because the judge tries to ask all relevant questions.
With the adversarial system of law, the side with the “best case” or best presentation to the court usually prevails. During this process the opposing sides will argue certain points of the case, submit motions to dispute anything that they believe will “hurt “their case. One might argue that all of the back and forth between the two parties would cause undue delays in the due process of the system. Whereas in the inquisitorial system, the delay is minimal since the majority of the pertinent questioning is done by the judge and