The Concept of The Adversarial Justice System - Essay Example

Introduction: The adversarial justice system is a legal system that is commonly used in countries that practice the doctrines of common law. This is a system whereby two advocates are able to represent the views and position of their clients, before a judge. It is the responsibility of the judge to be impartial, and come out with a ruling that is fair and not biased. It is therefore their responsibility to come up with the truth, regarding the case under consideration. The adversarial justice system is different from the inquisitorial justice system. The inquisitorial system is mostly used in civil cases, and was derived from the Napoleonic code, and the Roman laws. This involves a situation whereby the judge or a group of judges have a mandate to investigate a case, and come up with a conclusion regarding the case under consideration. Botting (2010) explains that the adversarial justice system is characterized by a two sided structure. Under this structure, the criminal trial courts are able to pit the defense against the prosecutors. Justice occurs, when the most effective and efficient adversary manages to convince the judges or the jury that his or her perspective regarding the case, is the right one. The evolution of the modern adversarial justice system can be associated to a variety of historical figures, these includes Donald Marshall in Canada, and Lord Henry Brougham of United Kingdom. The contributions of these two important historical figures are somehow related. This is because Donald Marshall was convicted of a crime that he did not commit, by a jury that was partisan. On the other hand, Lord Henry Brougham played an influential role in advocating for a non-partisan judge, who does not take the side of either the defense or the prosecutor during the process of administration of justice. However, this paper concentrates on the role played by Donald Marshall in promoting equality and fairness in the administration of justice. This paper takes a stand that the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall led to a reformation of the Canadian Justice System and that of the state of Nova Scotia. The Case of Donald Marshall: R vs. Marshall jr is a 1971 court case that provides an example of a wrongful conviction. Donald Marshall was imprisoned to a life sentence, because he was accused of murdering his friend, Sandy Seale. During this period in time, Sandy Seale and Donald Marshall were both 17 years old. The two were walking around the Wentworth Park, during a late evening, with the intention of going to take a drink. These two young people met Roy Ebsary, an old man, in the park. There was a short scuffle between Roy Ebsary and Seale and Marshall. This led to the death of Sandy Seale, who was stabbed by Roy Ebsary. Ebsary refused to admit that he played a role in the murder of Seale, and the police began their focus on Marshall (Coates, 2000). Marshall was well known to them, mainly because he had a criminal record with the police officers of Nova Scotia. The police made some speculation that Marshall killed Seale because of rage. From the beginning of this investigation to its end, the police were determined to find Marshall guilty, and they refused to examine other evidences that were exonerating Marshall. Marshall was sentenced to 11 years in prison, before getting an acquittal from the court of appeal of Nova Scotia in the year 1983 (Katz and Carroll, 2011). This is because of the recantation of the testimonies of several witnesses, and the introduction of a new witness who denoted that he saw another man, stabbing Sandy Seale. However, in this new appeal, Marshall was accused of having lied to the courts, on their activities during the death of Seale. This is because they had indeed approached Ebsary, with an intention of robbing him. This forced the judge to denote that Marshall was a victim of his own circumstances, instead of admitting of the flawed judicial system that the trial of Marshall took place under. This is because the trial was marred by racialism (Katz and Carroll, 2011). Donald Marshall was a native Indian, a minority tribe in Canada. Furthermore, the initial lawyers of Donald Marshall failed to efficiently represent him, as required by law. This is because they failed to carry out an independent investigation, interviewing crown witnesses, and seeking for the disclosure of evidence under the possession of the prosecutor. It is important to explain that disclosure of evidence to a suspect is a standard practice within the adversarial justice system. This is because it helps in the promotion of a fair administration of justice. It is important to understand that before this case, it was at the discretion of the prosecutor to disclose the evidence they had against a suspect. However, after the successful appeal of this case, the evidence act of Canada was changed, and it forced the prosecutor to disclose every evidence they have against a suspect. This is irrespective of whether it is useful or not. This is the decision that the defense has to make. Durnford (2010) further explains that this trial was heavily biased against Mr. Marshall because of his race. Race played a major factor in the manner which police officers and the prosecutors were able to treat Donald Marshall, resulting to a miscarriage of justice. Implications of Wrongful Convictions: From the case analysis above, we can denote that Donald Marshall suffered from a concept referred to as wrongful convictions. Wrongful conviction normally undermines the legitimacy of a criminal justice system. This is because a person is normally punished for a crime that he or she did not commit. Furthermore, the actual criminal goes free. Botting (2010) further explains that due to wrongful conviction, the confidence of the public towards the criminal justice system will decline. This is unacceptable because people will start administering justice by themselves, hence accelerating a crisis in the justice system. Furthermore, Durnford (2010) explains that some people may be reluctant to report a case to the police authorities, for fear of miscarriage of justice. Katz and Carroll (2011) further explains that the criminal justice system is normally grounded on the concept that a person is innocent, until the end of the trial. That is when the judges will determine whether the person under consideration is guilty or not. However, this greatly contradicts with the expectations and views of the public. This is because the public normally expects that people who are charged with an offence are guilty, and the court of law will find them guilty. Therefore, Botting (2010) explains that this concept of wrongful conviction undermines the public expectation regarding justice and the fundamental legal value, where a person is innocent, until the judges find him or her guilty. This is because it proves that the presumption of an individual innocence can be breached, and therefore the criminal justice system does not only punish the guilty. Therefore, Durnford (2010) explains that the implications of the results of the appeal by Donald Marshall, was to reform the criminal justice system in Canada, so that it may make it difficult for an individual to be convicted wrongfully. This would help in the restoration of public confidence to the Canadian justice system. Contribution to the Canadian Justice System: One of the most important contributions that this case had is on enacting the constitutional right of an individual to access the evidence that the prosecutor has against him or her. It is important to explain that after the recommendation to change from the Royal Commission on the wrongful conviction of Marshall to change the criminal code to allow the disclosure of evidence by prosecutors, parliament did not enact the changes (Coates, 2000). This ruling was made in the court case referred to as, R vs. Stinchcombe. Under this ruling, the court denoted that an accused person had a right of knowing what he is accused of, and the evidence against him, must be provided to him (Coates, 2000). This is irrespective of whether the evidence in question will help in building or destroying the case of the prosecutor. This would help in the prevention of wrongful conviction, mainly because an accused will manage to build his or her defense. In arriving at their decision, the judges denoted that a prosecutor is an officer of the crown, and they have an interest in the preservation and maintenance of justice. It is not just about winning a case; hence they are mandated to provide all evidence to an accused person, for his self-defense. Botting (2010) explains that this helps in the promotion of the adversarial justice system, where a prosecutor would argue a case with a defense attorney, in front of an impartial judge, for purposes of arriving at a conclusion on actually what happened. In arriving at their decision, the courts relied on the report by the commission responsible for investigating the circumstances that led to the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall. This report advocated for the concept of disclosure of evidence. Therefore, Donald Marshall played a role in forcing prosecutors to disclose their evidence to the defense (Coates, 2000). Another important impact of this case, to the Canadian justice system is the appointment of the director of prosecution, who had the mandate and power of supervising all prosecutions in Canada. This reform is aimed at ensuring that prosecutors are able to discharge their duties in a professional and efficient manner. This was developed because the prosecutors, in the 1971 case of R vs. Marshall Jr were accused of lack of professionalism, by failing to provide exonerating evidence to the judge and the jury (Coates, 2000). Furthermore, these prosecutors were poorly trained; hence supervision of these people by the director of prosecution would ensure that only highly trained and competent prosecutors are employed. Furthermore, the recommendation by the inquiry of wrongful conviction of Marshall denoted that there was a need of employing natives and other minority groups into the justice system of Canada. This is a recommendation that has been implemented, and its aim was to prevent a concept referred to as “tunnel vision” (Katz and Carroll, 2011). This is a situation whereby police officers only concentrate on a single line of incriminating evidence, refusing to acknowledge the existence of other forms or lines of evidence. However, having a diverse workforce within the justice system will help in the prevention of this concept of tunnel vision, which normally emanates because of discrimination, prejudice and racialism. These are the factors that played a role in the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall Jr. Conclusion: In conclusion, Donald Marshall played a significant role in the reformation of the Canadian Justice system, in respect to the laws and rules that govern disclosure of evidence. One of the major reasons that led to the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall was the failure by the prosecutors to provide the defense team with the testimonies of witnesses who testified against Mr. Marshall. This is a miscarriage of justice, because the defense team would be unable to prepare an effective defense that can help in proving the innocence of an accused person. This was a view held by the judges in the 1991 case of R vs. Stinchcombe. The judges were of the opinion that for the defendant to receive justice, the prosecutor must give him the testimonies of witnesses and his accusers. This is even if the disclosure of such kind of a testimony may lead to the weakening of the prosecutor’s case. As noted above, under the adversarial justice system, it is the responsibility of the defense team, and the prosecutor to argue their case in court, under a judge who is not partisan. This would be impossible without an access to the evidence of witnesses by the defense team. Based on these facts therefore, Donald Marshall helped in the promotion of the adversarial justice system in Canada. References: Botting, G. (2010). Wrongful conviction in Canadian law. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis. Top of Form Bottom of Form Coates, K. (2000). The Marshall decision and native rights. Montréal [Que.: McGill-Queens University Press. Top of Form Bottom of Form Durnford, M. (2010). Donald Marshall Jr. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Top of Form Bottom of Form Katz, H., & Carroll, M. (2011). Justice miscarried: Inside wrongful convictions in Canada. Toronto: Dundurn. Read More