Criminal justice system in Australia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Criminal justice system in Australia - Essay Example There are various types of criminal justice systems – the adversarial and the inquisitorial are two of the systems more commonly used by various countries and territories. This paper shall focus on Australia and its adversarial system. It shall discuss the thesis: When all is said and done, the current criminal justice system is about as fair and equitable as we can reasonably expect. This paper is to be analysed based on the Australian justice system as it applies its adversarial system as a fair and equitable tool. Discussion The adversarial criminal system is a common law system of carrying out proceedings where the parties, not the judge, have the task of establishing the issues being disputed and of investigating and further advancing the proceedings (Law Reform Commission, 1999). In contrast, the inquisitorial system is the civil code system where the judge has an important responsibility. The term adversary implies â€Å"opposition.† ... The crucial consideration in this system is the fact that the most number of fair resolutions of crimes are likely to occur with both sides being allowed to argue cases effectively before a fair and impartial jury (Schmalleger, 2007). In effect, it is not up to the prosecution or the defence to establish the guilt of a party, it is up to an impartial party hearing the case. As a result, it can be easily deemed that advocates on either side, arguing their side of the issue before an impartial judge can be considered the best means of achieving justice in the criminal justice system (Schmalleger, 2007). In instances however, when the system is seen as a means of seeking fault in a crime, there must be a thorough awareness of the limitations of this system. When all is said and done, the Australian adversarial criminal justice system is about as fair and as effective as can be reasonably expected. The Australian criminal justice system is fair and effective because the main goal of an a dversary system is to â€Å"prevent private justice by retribution† (Law Reform Commission, 2004, p. 24). The aim of this system is to secure procedural fairness within the society, a fairness which provides both sides of the issue a chance to express their side and be given equal protection by the system. The jury system has always been known as the linchpin of the system because in most of the cases, the judges play an active role, and the jury, a passive role (Associated Content, 2006). This is especially crucial for the defendants who are often defended by overworked and underskilled defenders (Associated Content, 2006). The judge plays an active role because the system has to depend on the ability of the advocates who are representing the