Adversarial

Question 1

Prosecution and defence argued in front of ‘impartial’ observers =

Answer 1

Judge and jury

Question 2

Judge =

Answer 2

Neutral referee

Question 3

Jury =

Answer 3

‘Hear’ evidence

Decide guilt on basis of if ‘facts’ presented by prosecution prove beyond REASONABLE DOUBT

Question 4

Prosecutor makes case re charges: then have to try and prove within the rules and procedures of the particular court.

Defendant/defence team can deny/challenge the claim or wait to see if the claim is sufficiently established.

Both:

Answer 4

Cross examine witnesses and defendant(s)

Question 5

Reliance on ‘oral evidence’ and rules determining the admissibility of evidence

No:

Answer 5

Hearsay
Previous offences
Allegations

Question 6

Trial is central in adversarial system, deemed to be the best way to

Answer 6

Determine guilt

Question 7

Trial = to establish if the

Answer 7

Prosecution has proved the allegation, NOT to determine the ‘truth’

Question 8

2 Positive critique:

Answer 8

‘Game’ is to ensure ‘reasonable doubt’ test met

To ensure due process proper and thorough upholding of defendants’ rights

Question 9

5 negative critique:

Answer 9

A ‘game’ = insulting, improper to achieve ‘justice’

Afford better lawyer = inequality

Drama = use of emotive tactics to persuade jury, not simply facts

Oral evidence only

Juries - 12 unskilled largely disinterested people

Question 10

2 parties = adversaries

Answer 10

Complainant vs. accused/defendant

Question 11

Questionable verdicts and traumatised victims?

Answer 11

Presumption of innocence & reliance on ‘legal’ guilt = potential lots of factually guilty acquitted

Experience of victims, also on trial, = key criticism

TEMKIN: 2000 - e.g. Rape victim accused of dressing for ‘it’