Criminal Court System Analysis

When the founders of the United States created the Criminal Court System (CCS), they imagined that the courts would act as a neutral ground were disputes could be resolved. In the Criminal Courts, the quarrel is usually between an individual and the state. The criminal proceeding that takes place is often the result of the defendant being accused with violating some provision of the criminal code. The founders also created the criminal court in way that it is constrained by constitutional limits. The Constitution holds that everyone is entitled to due process. Due process refers to the administration of justice in a procedural manner that is due to all people whenever there is a threat to a person’s life, liberty, or property at the hands of

Traditionally, the adversarial system’s function in criminal court was to resolve disputes by unfolding the truth behind the dispute. The system, effectively implemented would afford each party the opportunity to effectively argue their case. Though this solution seems admirable and well intended, studies suggest that, as practiced today, the adversarial is not effective in uncovering the truth in legal proceedings (Findley, 2012). This paper will attempt to answer the question as to whether the truth is a quality that the courts would forfeit in the pursuit of justice under the adversarial criminal court system. The first section of the paper will address the meaning of truth as it is applied to the research. The second section will further define the adversarial system and its benefits when administered correctly, while the third section will examine the problems associated with it’s lack of production of the truth today. The forth part of this paper will reflect my experiences with this issue in my internship at the criminal courts, and the final section will consider some solutions to the

If practiced correctly, both the prosecutor and defense counsel will be of the same caliber, therefore the outcome of the trial will not be based on the inadequacies or short comings of one attorney. Instead, the judgment will be a reflection of the two attorney’s desire to present a case that is in favor of the parties that they represent. Another benefit in having equal legal representation is that both parties are able to defend their clients to the best of their abilities. Both the prosecution and defense attorneys have a chance to recite their rendition of the events that brings them to trial. Since the Judge does not favor one opponent over the other, both adversaries have an equal opportunity to win the trial for their clients. According to Weigend (2003), defense attorneys prefer the adversary system over any other system because it not only places them on the same platform as the prosecution but it also gives them a chance to contest the evidence against their clients. They have the power to expose falsehoods (cross-examination), uncover overlooked detail as well as to create a story that favors their client. Since this is the case, the defense attorneys feel that they have more power during the representation of their