NCJ Number
81693
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Ranking judges and legal scholars discuss characteristics of the British, Scottish, Australian, and Canadian common law systems and compare their practices in an attempt to indicate areas of possible reform in the American justice system.
Abstract
These countries' common law practices are characterized by the adversary structure (as opposed to the inquisitorial), due process, and the jury system. In general, American practices are most similar to those in Canada. The American system has neither the English divided law profession (masters functioning at the pretrial stage and barristers being the experts in trial advocacy) nor the indemnity cost system, both of which significantly influence pretrial proceedings. Further, most of these Anglican systems no longer have jury trials in civil cases, making litigation more predictable. The American Bill of Rights establishes due process with a procedural rigidity that makes the administration of justice cumbersome and evasive, implying an 'irrelevancy of guilt.' The judge's role in Anglican justice systems seems to carry more authority in the control of advocates and in jury guidance than under the American system.