The first territory to fully adopt the Inquisition system was the Holy Roman Empire. The new German legal procedure was introduced as part of the Worms Reformation of 1498, and the Constitutio Criminalis Bambergensis of 1507. The adoption of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (Charles V`s embarrassing court code) in 1532 made the inquisition procedure an empirical law. It was not until Napoleon introduced the Code of Criminal Procedure (French Code of Criminal Procedure) on 16 November 1808 that the classic procedures of the Inquisition ended in all German territories. In adversarial systems, the defendant can plead “guilty” or “no challenge” in exchange for reduced sentences, a practice known as plea bargaining or plea agreement, which is extremely common in the United States. Theoretically, the accused must subpoena or “express” his crimes in a public hearing, and the judge must believe that the accused is telling the truth about his guilt. In an inquisitorial system, an admission of guilt would not be considered grounds for a guilty verdict. The prosecutor must present evidence of a guilty verdict. However, this requirement does not only apply to inquisitorial systems, as many or most adversary systems make a similar requirement under the name corpus delicti. Since criminal investigations are initiated and defendants may drop charges for procedural reasons during the examination phase, cases where evidence is weak tend not to reach trial.
Conversely, until recently, admission of guilt and plea were unknown to French Droit. They are accepted only for offences for which the Public Prosecutor`s Office requires a custodial sentence of up to one year. As a result, most cases go to court, including cases in which the prosecution is almost certain to reach a conviction. In countries such as the United States, the latter cases would be resolved through plea bargaining. The inquisitorial system can be defined by comparison with the adversarial or adversarial system used in the United States and Great Britain. In the opposing SYSTEM, two or more opposing parties collect evidence and present the evidence and their arguments to a judge or jury. The judge or jury is not aware of the dispute until the parties have submitted their arguments to the decision-maker. The accused in criminal proceedings is not obliged to testify. In most inquisitorial systems, a criminal accused does not have to answer questions about the crime itself, but can be asked to answer all other questions in the trial.
Many of these other issues relate to the defendant`s background and would be considered irrelevant and inadmissible in an adversarial system. The inquisitorial system does not protect criminal defendants as much as the adversarial system. On the other hand, prosecutors in the inquisitorial system have no personal incentive to obtain politically motivated convictions, which can motivate prosecutors in an adversarial system. Most scientists agree that the two systems usually achieve the same results by different means. A criminal accused in an inquisitorial system is the first to testify. The accused is allowed to see the government record before testifying, and is usually eager to tell his side of the story. In an adversarial system, the accused is not compelled to testify and is not entitled to a full investigation into the government`s case. As a result, in parts of continental Europe, ecclesiastical tribunals, operating under the procedure of the Inquisition, became the dominant method by which disputes were settled. In France, parliaments – lay courts – also engaged in inquisitorial proceedings. [4] In an inquisitorial system, trial judges (usually plural for serious crimes) are inquisitors who actively participate in the public inquiry by questioning defense lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses. They could even order the examination of certain evidence if they consider that the presentation of the defence or prosecution is insufficient. Before the case goes to court, investigating judges in France participate in the investigation of a case, often assessing police elements and consulting with the prosecutor.
A criminal accused is not convicted in an inquisitorial system. However, since no trial would be brought against an accused in the absence of proof of guilt, the system does not require the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the adversarial system. In administrative courts such as the Council of State, judicial proceedings are much more inquisitorial. Most of the procedure is done in writing; the applicant writes to the Tribunal requesting explanations from the administration or public service concerned; If the court receives a response, it can then ask the plaintiff for more details, etc. When the case is sufficiently closed, the dispute begins in court; However, the parties are not obliged to attend the hearing. This method reflects the fact that administrative measures are mostly formal and formal. The main feature of the inquisitorial system in the criminal justice system in France and other countries that operate according to the same pattern is the function of the investigating judge, also known as a magistrate. The investigating judge conducts investigations into serious crimes or complex investigations. As a member of the judiciary, he is independent and does not fall under the competence of the executive and is therefore separate from the Public Prosecutor`s Office, which reports to the Minister of Justice.
The two systems are different throughout, as different countries have changed their criminal procedures in different ways over the years in order to balance the interests of the state in arresting and convicting offenders with the interests of citizens who may be involved in the trial. As this module will show, these different legal traditions influence the way criminal cases are examined and prosecuted. Judges play an active role in the cases before them. They investigate the case, define legal issues and gather evidence from the police. You can call and question witnesses and ensure that court proceedings are followed properly before a verdict or outcome is determined. Common law countries, including the United States, may use an inquisitorial system for summary hearings for misdemeanours or offences, such as minor traffic offences. The distinction between an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system has nothing theoretically to do with the distinction between a civil law system and a common law system. Some jurists consider the inquisitorial to be misleading and prefer the word non-adversarial. [2] The function is often delegated to the prosecutor`s office, as in China, Japan and Germany. Because of the increased role of the judge, legal representation in court proceedings often plays a secondary role. However, legal representation can help the judge find the truth.
You can also question witnesses and contact the court to help the judge find out the truth. Some administrative proceedings in some common law countries in the United States may be similar to their civilian counterparts, but are conducted under a more inquisitorial model. For example, courts dealing with minor traffic violations of the New York City Traffic Violations Bureau are before an adjudicator who also acts as a prosecutor. They question witnesses before sentencing and imposing fines. In the development of modern legal institutions that took place in the 19th century, courts largely codified their private law and criminal law, and also examined and codified codes of civil procedure. This development has enshrined the role of an inquisitorial system in most European civil legal systems. However, there are significant differences in working methods and procedures between the courts of the 18th century Ancien Régime and the courts of the 19th century. In particular, restrictions on the powers of investigators as well as extensive rights of defence have generally been added. Appeals based on questions of fact, such as the sufficiency of the sum of the evidence properly admitted, are subject to a standard of review that, in most jurisdictions, corresponds to the judgment of the investigator at trial, whether a judge or a jury.