In the previous chapters it has been demonstrated that quite a few differences exist between the adversarial criminal justice system as it is commonly practiced in the united states and the form of inquisitorial system as it is practiced in the netherlands.1 it has been argued that these systems are somewhere at opposite extremes of the adversarial-inquisitorial continuum (nijboer, 2000b; toornvliet, 2000). In his chapter in the present volume hans crombag noted “that the question which of the two models is the better one, is unanswerable, because they do not serve the same (proximate) goals.” although “the ultimate goal of both systems is… to serve justice,” crombag argued that “in the inquisitorial model truth itself is the proximate goal of the system,” while “fair play is the proximate goal of the adversarial model.”keywordscriminal justice systemdutch societydefense attorneyappellate courtsentencing guidelinethese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
|Title of host publication
|Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice P
|Subtitle of host publication
|sychological perspectives on criminal justice systems
|P.J. van Koppen, S.D. Penrod
|Place of Publication
|Published - 1 Jan 2003