Hong Kong Magistrates Trials are more inquisitorial than adversarial When an offence has been committed t present is a moral and social obligation that the perpetrator be tried and convicted. Every criminal justice erect has devised a mechanism to bring about this desired effect. The opening here demands an investigation of the cardinal modes of endeavor that are implemented in the democratic world and whether the system employed in the Hong Kong Magistrates leans to ace system over the other. Adversarial system: Ask any layperson and his/her perception of a criminal ravel impart be akin to an adversarial model. As the name suggests the trial is conducted between two parties (the defence representing the accused, the prosecution representing the victim ) going against one another, with a neutral tag or jury to be the nett arbiter in determining which side of the facts represents the truth. The main run around of this mode of trial is that the truth is established b y government agency of a contest between the two parties. Inquisitorial system: In contrast to the above, in an inquisitorial trial the prosecution is delineated by the state and it is his/her obligation to see the relevant facts of the case. The appraise has the pivotal map of establishing the truth.
Hence, he will be actively involved in the trial impact and not surprisingly the defendant will largely be questioned by the judge. The advocates sole(prenominal) subscribe a minor role to play, asking supplementary questions or objecting to them. By looking at the definitions at one metre can see that th ere is no reason wherefore rule of law pri! nciples such as due process, enhancer etc. cannot be upheld by either system. Hence, on a substantive level both systems are the same and the lonesome(prenominal) difference is procedural. A state committed to uphold the rule... If you touch to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment