The question of which method, the U.S. system or the European/South American system, does a better job of getting at the truth and serving justice is a complex and debated topic. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.
The U.S. system, with attorneys taking the lead in presenting evidence and conducting the trial, emphasizes adversarial advocacy. This allows for a vigorous examination of the evidence and arguments from both sides. It is believed that this adversarial process helps ensure a fair trial by allowing each party to present their case to the best of their ability. However, critics argue that this adversarial nature can sometimes prioritize winning over seeking the truth.
On the other hand, the European/South American system, where judges and jurors play an active role in conducting the trial and seeking the truth, emphasizes an inquisitorial approach. This system allows for more active participation from the judges and jurors in gathering evidence and questioning witnesses. Proponents argue that this approach may lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the case and a better chance of uncovering the truth. However, critics argue that this system may place too much power in the hands of judges and may not provide sufficient checks and balances.
Regarding the determination of compensatory and punitive damages, there is no definitive answer as to whether jurors or judges are better qualified. Jurors bring diverse perspectives and life experiences to the decision-making process, which can be valuable in assessing damages. However, jurors may also be influenced by emotions or lack expertise in evaluating complex financial matters. Judges, on the other hand, possess legal expertise and are accustomed to making decisions based on legal principles. However, some argue that judges may be disconnected from public sentiment and lack the understanding of community values.
In my opinion, a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of both systems could potentially yield the best results. This could involve active involvement from judges and jurors in seeking the truth during the trial, while also ensuring that attorneys play a crucial role in presenting evidence and arguments. As for determining damages, it could be beneficial to have a collaborative process where jurors provide their perspectives while judges provide guidance based on legal principles.
It is essential to continue exploring different approaches and evaluating their effectiveness in promoting justice and uncovering the truth. Each system has its merits, and considering potential improvements can lead to a more fair and effective legal process.
