Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:46:11.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Judicial Institutions: Using an Inquisitorial Trial Simulation to Facilitate Student Understanding of International Legal Traditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2009

David L. Weiden
David L. Weiden
Affiliation:
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes a new role-playing exercise for public law courses: a mock-trial simulation using the European inquisitorial system of trial procedure. By exposing students to an alternative method of conducting a trial, numerous pedagogical benefits can be obtained, including stimulating critical thinking regarding the potential inefficiencies in the American trial system. The article provides an overview of the inquisitorial trial system, and also sets out the procedures for conducting the simulation and conducting assessment.

Type
The Teacher
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 759 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Block, Michael K., and Parker, Jeffrey S.. 2004. “Decision Making in the Absence of Successful Fact Finding: Theory and Experimental Evidence on Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Systems of Adjudication.” International Review of Law and Economics 24 (1): 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Michael K., Parker, Jeffrey S., Vyborna, Olga, and Dusek, Libor. 2000. “An Experimental Comparison of Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Procedure Regimes.” American Law and Economics Review 2 (1): 170–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, James R., and Daniels, Stephen. 1997. Hypotheticals: Supreme Court Decision-Making and Constitutional Interpretation. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Cavise, Leonard L. 2006. “When the Inquisitorial and Adversary Systems Collide: Teaching Trial Advocacy to Latin American Lawyers.” Bepress Legal Series. Working Paper 971. http: //law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/971.Google Scholar
Cavise, Leonard L. 2007. “The Transition from the Inquisitorial to the Accusatorial System of Trial Procedure: Why Some Latin American Lawyers Hesitate.” Original Law Review 3 (1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Deffains, Bruno, and Demougin, Dominique. 2008. “The Inquisitorial and the Adversarial Procedure in a Criminal Court Setting.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 164: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehm, James W. 2001. “The Introduction of Jury Trials and Adversarial Elements into the Former Soviet Union and Other Inquisitorial Countries.” Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 11 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Fairchild, Erika, and Dammer, Harry R.. 2001. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Frase, Richard S. 1998. “Main-Streaming Comparative Criminal Justice: How to Incorporate Comparative and International Concepts and Materials into Basic Criminal Law and Procedure Courses.” West Virginia Law Review 100: 773–97.Google Scholar
Jacob, Herbert. 1996. “Courts and Politics in the United States.” In Courts, Law and Politics in Comparative Perspective, ed. Jacob, Herbert, Blankenburg, Erhard, Kritzer, Herbert M., Provine, Doris Marie, and Sanders, Joseph. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jorg, Nico, Field, Steward, and Brants, Chrisje. 1995. “Are Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Converging?” In Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, ed. Fennell, Phil, Harding, Christopher, Jorg, Nico, and Swart, Bert. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knerr, Charles R., and Sommerman, Andrew B.. 2001. “Bringing the Court into the Undergraduate Classroom: Appellate Simulation in American Colleges.” Law and Courts 11 (2): 4–8.Google Scholar
Langbein, John H. 1977. Comparative Criminal Procedure: Germany. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Lerner, Renee Lettow. 2001. “The Intersection of Two Systems: An American on Trial for an American Murder in the French Cour D'Assises.” University of Illinois Law Review 2001: 791–856.Google Scholar
Levy, Leonard W. 1999. The Palladium of Justice: Origin of Trial by Jury. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.Google Scholar
Mack, Raneta Lawson. 1996. “It's Broke so Let's Fix It: Using a Quasi-Inquisitorial Approach to Limit the Impact of Bias in the American Criminal Justice System.” Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 7: 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskovitz, Myron. 1995. “The O.J. Inquisition: A United States Encounter with Continental Criminal Justice.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 28: 1121–202.Google Scholar
Pacelle, Richard. 1989. “Simulating Supreme Court Decision Making.” Political Science Teacher 2: 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizzi, William T. 1999. Trials Without Truth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Reichel, Philip L. 2005. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ringel, Lewis S., and Fair, Daryl R.. 2004. “Writing Successful Moot Court Cases for In-Class Simulations.” Law and Courts 14 (1): 9–17.Google Scholar
Shin, Hyun Song. 1998. “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration.” RAND Journal of Economics 29: 378–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spader, Dean J. 1999. “Teaching Comparative Criminal Procedure: Russian Dolls, Color Charts, and Cappuccino.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 10: 111–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strier, Franklin D. 1992a. “What Can the American Adversary System Learn From an Inquisitorial System of Justice?” Judicature 76: 109–11, 161–62.Google Scholar
Strier, Franklin D. 1992b. “Major Problems Endemic to the Adversary System and Proposed Reforms.” Western State University Law Review 19: 463–92.Google Scholar
Strier, Franklin D. 1996. “Making Jury Trials More Truthful.” U.C. Davis Law Review 30: 95–182.Google Scholar
Terrill, Richard J. 1999. World Criminal Justice Systems. 4th ed. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.Google Scholar
Thaman, Stephen C. 2002. Comparative Criminal Procedure: A Casebook Approach. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vile, John R., and Van Dervort, Thomas R.. 1994. “Revitalizing Undergraduate Programs Through Intercollegiate Mock Trial Competition.” PS: Political Science & Politics 27: 712–15.Google Scholar