• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

INquisitorial Indonesia

Extracts from this document...


Introduction: The way in which a trial is conducted can have an enormous effect on the outcome of a case. The two major systems of trial operating around the world are the Adversarial system and the Inquisitorial system. The fundamental differences between these two systems can be found in the role of the judge, role of the legal representatives, rules of evidence and the procedure of trial. These differences affect the way in which the facts of the case are decided and hence altar the outcome of the case. The Adversarial system operates in common law countries such as Britain and Australia and it is based on the contest between two parties with an impartial adjudicator. The theory is that as both parties have equal opportunity to argue their case, they will present relevant evidence and the truth will be revealed. The Inquisitorial system however, which is used in civil law countries such as Germany and Indonesia, requires a judge or group of judges to actively investigate the case before them while the advocates merely offer assistance. ...read more.


They do not actively participate in the trial as they do in Indonesia and the outcome of the case is based not on their skill to determine the truth, but on their ability to interpret and apply the law to the case at hand. Role of the Legal Representatives/Parties The role of the Legal representatives in Indonesia and Australia are also very different. The legal representative in any system of trial aims to represent the interests of their client however the extent to which the legal representative participates varies between the two systems. In Indonesia's inquisitorial system the legal representatives merely assists the judge and their role is fairly minimal. They can argue points of law on behalf of their client focusing mainly on litigation and providing general legal advice. In some instances they can ask questions of the judge and the judge can ask questions of them but they have virtually no role in the investigation of the case. The adversarial system on the other hand, places much more responsibility into the hands of the legal representative in regards to preparing and presenting their case, determining the issues to be contested, collecting evidence and examining witnesses. ...read more.


There is a strong reliance on material evidence and the number of cases that proceed to a formal trial is greatly reduced as the judge will often determine questions of guilt or innocence before the trial proceeds. If the trial does go ahead it may be stopped at any time for the judge to further investigate and issue or piece of evidence. This is different from Australia's adversarial system where there is a stronger reliance on oral evidence and the trial is heard as a single continuous event. Conclusion The Adversarial and Inquisitorial systems of trial are vastly different and these differences arise from their contrasting theories. The adversarial system being based on the theory that both parties will present relevant evidence to reveal the truth, and the inquisitorial system on the theory that the judge will use his/her skill and knowledge to determine the truth. The role of the judge, role of the legal representatives, rules of evidence and the procedure of trial reflect these theories and by examining Indonesia's inquisitorial system and Australia's Adversarial system their fundamental differences in these areas are evident. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. Free essay

    Reforms of Turkey under Mustafa Ataturk, with regards to the revelutions from above

    same policies towards secularization as Ataturk, there were substantial differences between their regimes which are important to take into account. Reza Shah failed to articulate his goals with the same level of clarity as Ataturk did, which was one of the significant factors that failed to give Iran enough room for progression in the western direction.

  2. Examine the impact that independence had economically, socially, and politically in Indonesia.

    the nation, this nation is left in a pitiful state to fend for itself. Thus, even Japanese rule was not benefiting Indonesia economically. When independence was achieved, the leading party was extremely clever in realizing that Indonesia could not commence economic rehabilitation on her own, but rather, needed help from other nations.

  1. Analysis of Australia.

    There is no dominant religion in Australia. As of July 2002, 26.1% are Anglican, 26% are Roman Catholic, 24.3% are another Christian religion, and 11% are non-Christian. The most used language of Australia is English, however, there are a variety of other native languages that are still used today.

  2. Belfast Air Raid Investigation

    For example, Southampton and Portsmouth had fifteen times as many raids, but yet neither matched the high figures of Belfast's deaths and houses destroyed or damaged. This can help us understand the intensity of these few raids on Belfast and their effect on the city.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work