Descibe The Difference Between An objective Purpose And adversarial Purpose In Law – Assignment Example
Objective Purpose and Adversarial Purpose in Law A law may be defined as a regulation that governs social conduct enforced by the government. Unlike other social rules and practices, laws are backed up by the governments legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This makes the government to be potentially the greatest rights-violator in a society, hence the need for objective law.
"Objective" laws refers to law that is based on a rational consideration of the relevant facts, such as human rights that are the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival (DeBarba, 1531). An objectively derived law is one based on a rational application of the principle of individual rights, and not from the notion of legislators or bureaucrats. Laws must always be objective both in form and derivation according to DeBarba.
An adversarial system of law on the other hand, is a system that bases its judgment on the arguments between each party’s advocate, and it involves an unbiased person usually the jury, in trying to determine the truth of the case according to DeBarba (1532). In this system, justice is reached when the most effective challenger is able to convince the judge or jury that his side on the case is the correct one.
The objective purpose in law is meant to reduce chaos in judgment. This is because objective laws are clearly defined, consistent and straightforward. Citizens must know clearly, before taking an action, what and why the law forbids them to do, what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it. The adversarial purpose in law on the other hand is meant to give each party a chance to argue out their point of view regarding the case at hand (DeBarba, 1535). The final judgment is left for either the judge or the jury to make, although bias in judgment is common in this system of law.
In an adversarial proceeding, an accused is not compelled to give evidence if it’s a criminal case. He/she may not be questioned by prosecutor or judge unless he chooses to do so. If he decides to testify, then he is subject to cross-examination and could be found guilty of perjury.
DeBarba Kirsten (2002) Maintaining the adversarial system: The practice of allowing jurors to question witnesses during trial. Vanderbilt Law Review 55, no. 5 (October 1): 1521-1548.