Talk:Inquisitorial system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

In what countries is the inquisitorial system used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.53.14 (talk • contribs) i have no idea but i would like to know also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.24.242 (talk • contribs)

This page needs to be sourced or removed for copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.99.14 (talk • contribs)

It still looks only partially sourced. Seahen 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Check for correctness 2 Distinguish criminal from civil matters 3 What, no criticism? 4 without juge d'instruction?

[edit] Check for correctness

This is incorrect. International tribunals almost universially use an inquistiorial system in which the judges ask most of the questions and there isn't a separate jury. Roadrunner 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Although international tribunals intended to try crimes against humanity, such as the Nuremberg Trials and the International Criminal Court, have generally used a version of the adversarial system, they have also incorporated some key features of the inquisitorial system, such as the use of professional judges, and in the case of the International Criminal Court, the use of a screening pre-trial chamber. See the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for examples.

You are confusing the differences between trial by jury and trial by the court with the adversarial versus inquisitorial system. Adversarial systems need not have juries: consider Japan. In a true inquisitorial system, the court begins and conducts an investigation on its own. A good example would be the Mexican judicial police. Yet in no international tribunals has the court had power to begin an investigation; only the prosecutor has this power, which is distinctly adversarial, and is one of the most important differences. This was true at Nuremberg and is true of the ICC. See Article 15 of the Rome Statute (the prosecutor has the authority to initiate investigations himself, and only needs authorization of a pre-trial chamber when he has to go out and collect evidence; essentially a warrant-type procedure). Or consider the fact that, under ICC Article 66(2), the onus is on the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused - distinct from inquisitorial systems, where the court proves guilt to itself. The fact that judges ask questions isn't surprising either, as that is a common feature of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems, see (US) Federal Rule of Evidence 614 (esp. comments of the advisory committee), and control of witness interrogation has always been with the court in adversarial systems, see (US) Federal Rule of Evidence 611 (esp. comments of the advisory committee). Moreover, the proceedings at Nuremberg contained none of the inquisitorial procedures that the ICTR, ICTY, or especially the ICC have incorporated, and flexible rules of evidence and lack of juries were all that marked them out from English or American trials. See See Telford Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir (1992). Danculley 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish criminal from civil matters

I would only like to caution that the crude distinction between adversarial anglo-saxon models and inquisitorial continental-European models applies only to criminal proceedings -- which an uninformed reader may not realized from the article.

In civil matters, the question is much more complex and may well cut the other way round: Civil law systems hardly ever use discovery. Systems in the common law tradition rely heavily on it in complex litigation. Discovery is, essentially, an "inquisitorial" court order that allows a claimant to make a case against the defendant on the basis of material that is in the possession of the defendant. The reason is, again fully in the inquisitorial tradition, that proceedings should represent a quest for truth.

This is simply not the case in continental systems. Here, the assumed facts are simply what adversarial proceedings may be able to prove. If a claimant cannot prove a point, it cannot rely on the state (judge) to help it find material to prove his point. Rather, he will lose on grounds of burden of proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.133.10 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What, no criticism?

I have no formal background in law, however it seems odd to me that the Adversarial system has several paragraphs of criticism, however there appears to be none on this page. Because I lack the background, I am not comfortable adding that section to this article, but I did dig up somewhere to start:

Critics argue that the inquisitorial system places too much unchecked power in the examining magistrate and judge, who both investigate and adjudicate (legally determine) the case.

I found this at Bhutanese Government Trial Systems page. I don't have anything else to add here, but I hope someone who knows this subject does. - JustinWick 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Exact same comment. It seems a bit biased that we have a lot of critique of the Adversarial system and very little of the Inquisitorial System, when both certainly have critiques. 12.151.41.2 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] without juge d'instruction?

In jurisdictions with an inquisitorial system, what happens in minor criminal cases when juge d'instruction are not used? Does the law enforcement carry out summary justice, or otherwise? – Kaihsu (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)