In the United States, the legal system is adversarial. This means that the opposite parties with a case establish and present their perspectives, gather their evidence and present what they have, cross-question their witnesses and are guided by certain rules and processes (Feeley, 2017). In this kind of system, the jury or judge determining the case is expected to be passive and neutral throughout the trial.
One of the cultural values of American society reflected in the adversarial system is individualism. The adversarial system is largely individualistic since it gives individuals involved in the case both responsibility and control to present their argument in the best way they may want ( Feeley, 2017). The system also takes advantage of self-interest in the conflicting parties in a creative and complete argument. The system finds a solution to the presented case by allowing the litigants to pursue their self-interest regardless of what the opposite parties make of the case. Arguably, the system expects the involved parties to argue selfishly (Feeley, 2017). This is highly reflective of the American culture of individualism where people mind their businesses without any regard to collectivism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The adversarial legal system focuses more on winning than seeking the truth. While the proponents of the adversarial system have argued that that the viewpoints of clashing opposites yields the truth, it is evident that the lawyers handling cases in adversarial system spend most of their time avoiding the truth than seeking it (Thomson, McArthur, & Camilleri, 2017). Since every party has control over the litigation process, the conflicting parties present evidence which only favors them and tries to suppress any other evidence which does not favor them. The ethics code of lawyers encourages them to zealously present their cases at the expense of seeking the truth. The rules of evidence in adversarial systems do not favor fairness since it prevents crucial information from getting presented to the judges or jury
The proponents of the adversarial system contend that it is important for the conflicting parties to have control over litigation so that the jury or the judge can maintain neutrality. They also observe that while the lawyers may be susceptible to corruption, they are governed by the code of conduct which makes them observe the standard ethics in their practice. Even with these arguments by the proponents, the system has been vigorously questioned by critics on how the two conflicting partisans provide the best item of establishing the truth. Further, high powered counsels have in most cases escaped convictions (Thomson, McArthur & Camilleri, 2017). Also, the significance of the adversary system has been doubted given the fact that most criminal cases do not reach the stage of the trial but are often settled through a negotiation process between the conflicting parties during plea bargaining.
In view of this paper, the adversarial system is not the most efficient legal system. This is because it is costly, slow and cumbersome. The system blends with the societal culture of competition and individualism. The conflicting parties are given equal opportunities to present their arguments and to criticize each other during the procedure after which the party which convinces the jury more wins while the party which does not convince the jury loses. Whereas a party may win a case in this system, the litigation cost for both parties outweighs the overall benefit. The adversarial system in my view is flawed since it gives the wealthier parties an upper hand of winning the case (Thomson, McArthur & Camilleri, 2017). This is because the wealthier party has more resources to hire a better legal team that can argue better their case while the poorer party is limited by the resources. The adversarial system has encouraged the ‘man eat man' society and has made the rich to be even richer while the poor continue to languish in poverty.
References
Feeley, M. (2017). The adversary system. In Crime, Law and Society (pp. 105-118). Routledge.
Thomson, L., McArthur, M., & Camilleri, P. (2017). Is it ‘fair'? Representation of children, young people and parents in an adversarial court system. Child & Family Social Work , 22 , 23-32.
