The American jurisprudence holds the “advisory system” as its fundamental concept. This is meant that the party who holds the truth on its side will be the ultimate winner of the case. Despite the fact that this does not always work in our society it is our system.
Most of the Continental European systems put the “civil law” method into effect. In the “civil law” method all lawyers are obligated and responsible to “search for truth”. This means that if one of the lawyers comes across information that pertains to or would benefit the other party’s case then they must forward that information to the other party.
My opinion in which system is better is that the civil law method surpasses the advisory system. My reasoning behind my leaning towards the civil law method is due to the fact that both parties do work together in order to prosecute the person who is more accurately at fault of the crime. Whereas the advisory system does not care if they have incriminating evidence on a lawyer’s client, they will still work to protect the guilty and not share the incriminating evidence with the other party. An article titled Comparisons with the Inquisitorial Approach states the following:
“Proponents of the adversarial system often argue that the system is fairer and less prone to abuse than the inquisitional approach, because it allows less room for the state to be biased against the defendant. It also allows most private litigants to settle their disputes in an amicable manner through discovery and pre-trial settlements in which non-contested facts are agreed upon and not dealt with during the trial process.
In addition, adversarial procedure defenders argue that the inquisitorial court systems are overly institutionalized and removed from the average citizen. The common law trial lawyer has ample opportunity to uncover the truth in a laboratory called the courtroom. Most cases that go to trial are carefully prepared through a discovery process that aids in...