There are numerous
positives with adversarial argumentation. By each side being guaranteed legal
representation, it makes sure that people have access to a better understanding
of the legal system (most people aren’t lawyers). By having two sides present
proof, this allows the judge and jury (if a jury is present) to evaluate both
sides, ideally impartially, and make a verdict from there. This system is
standard practice in countries such as the US.
However,
in practice, this can often unfairly benefit those with wealth, as they have
access to better, and more dedicated legal representation (in the U.S. for
example, in some states, public defenders are only given minutes per case, due
to the overflow of cases). Also, with a jury and in some cases a judge, while ideally,
they are supposed to be impartial, they can sometimes fall into prejudices
against people, and that can influence their verdict. For example, two suspects
are presented for a mugging: a married mother, and a single male. Just from
that information, who do you think committed the crime? While statistically,
perhaps the single male is more likely to have committed the crime, the legal
system evaluates on a case by case basis, in reference to the law, making this
point less relevant. If the jury and judge have these preconceptions about the
case, they may fall into ‘confirmation bias’, and see evidence against the male
where there isn’t any (i.e. “we found a knife in his house” but the knife is
just a multi-tool one or one for hunting – the guy is a hunter). In addition,
the prosecution investigating could’ve had that same bias, and searched for
evidence more actively against the guy.
Furthermore,
a lot of the system depends on the qualifications of the people involved. An
incompetent prosecution or police force can miss evidence that would’ve been
found by better qualified personnel, which would influence the verdict. Also, if
a person has the unfortunate luck to receive a bad lawyer, that can also
influence the verdict, if the lawyer doesn’t argue their position well. In addition,
if the judge is up for re-election (in places that have elected judges), they
might want to appear ‘tough on crime’ and decide to punish criminals more
harshly than they normally would, or be nicer to donors (to their re-election
campaign).
Overall,
while adversarial argumentation works best in ideal conditions (both sides have
similarly qualified personnel, judge and jury are impartial, with no
prejudices), it seems to work fine in real life conditions, in regards to
determining a person’s innocence. Because the burden of proof lies on the
accuser, it is harder for innocent people to be convicted (however, this still
happens on occasion). Also, due to the accessibility of the legal system for
the average person, i.e. jury, and right to legal representation, it is a bit more
equalised. Like all legal systems, it has its difficulties, but what system is
better than this? This system is more inclusive of the average person, due to
the aid they receive from legal representation, and the burden of proof lying
on the accuser, making it less easy for the government or other groups with
massive resources to convict someone who has done something they didn’t like.
In a way, it is the most ‘democratic’/equal system, due to the two lawyers from
two differing sides format.
