How Adversarial Approach Affects the Depth and Scope of Inquiry - Case Study Example

How Adversarial Approach Affects the Depth and Scope of Inquiry The inquiry of Stephen Lawrence’ murder is a process that started way back in the year 1993, but has yet to be decided. Stephen Lawrence, a black American, was murdered by a group of white youths in the company of his friend Duwayne Brooks. Following this murder, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) initiated an investigation in the matter with the aim of granting justice to the parents of the victim and to bring to book the perpetrators of the offence. However, a complaint arose around the determination of the case, with the Police Complains Authority faulting the MPS for bundling the case. The PCA cited faulted cross-examination and the treatment of information in biased manner. Consequently, PCA engaged Kent to investigate Mr and Mrs Lawrence complain against the procedures that the MPS used in finding evidence in the case (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999, Para. 2.6). From a close examination of the case, there was evidence of racism, corruption and incompetence that faulted the whole process of investigation. On this ground, it is reasonable to take a new approach in the case to ensure that justice is granted to the victims. Sir William Macpherson of Cluny drafted a report on the inquiry and suggested a new approach to the case. The Macpherson Report offers a new approach to the path that the investigation and the case should follow. Notably, he identifies that the entire process conducted by the MPS was faulty due to numerous weaknesses that arise in the study of the evidence presented in the case. He identifies the improper treatment of witnesses, ignorance of facts, biased treatment and racial favouritism. This inquiry followed an inquisitorial approach, in which the police, jury and other stakeholders were expected to actively participate in the investigation process. However, it is clear that the stakeholders of the case were not completely engaged and individual police officers lacked the necessary competence to handle the case. On this note, Macpherson emphasizes that the case needs to follow an adversarial approach rather than an inquisitorial approach, to guarantee that there is no bias in the treatment of the case. Secondly, Macpherson suggests limited immunity to insure the participants that they cannot be prosecuted on the basis of their utterances (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999, Para. 7.43). The purpose of this essay is to analyse how this new approach to the case would affected the depth and scope of the inquiry. In case inquiry, there arises a dilemma in the choice of the best approach to use since all approaches have their own merits and limitations. Often, it has become a complex issue to choose between the inquisitorial and adversarial approach of handling legal cases. The two approaches are different, but it is generally accepted that both approaches have their own weaknesses and strengths. An adversarial case in one in which the two sides of the case, the police and the defence, take different sides and produce evidence to counter each other. In principle, it is a competitive approach that requires that the two sides present evidence to justify their claims. In this approach, the jury presents their comment only after the subjects have submitted all the evidence. On the other hand, the inquisitorial approach gives the jury the right to co-work with the parties in the investigation and evidence gathering process. Unlike in the former approach, the jury bears the freedom to ask the complainants questions that are relevant to the tabled evidence (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999). Therefore, the jury’s ruling at the end of the court depends on the response of the subjects to the jury during the court proceedings. The approach that the jury adopts, whether inquisitorial or adversarial, defines the scope and depth of the inquiry. Therefore, the choice of the approach is crucial and depends on the nature of the case. To begin with, it is crucial to consider the path that each approach follows and how this may affect the proceedings of the case. In an inquisitorial approach, the judge prepares the evidence of the case along with the police officers and decides how the parties of the case are present their case at the trial stage. The judge takes the role of questioning all the parties in depth and requires and has the authority to invited witnesses to testify. On the other hand, the prosecution and the defence team have the right to ask follow up questions (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999). From this point of view, the judge performs both the role of a prosecutor and the judge in determining the case. Therefore, the judge is entirely responsible in the finding of the truth that can assist in bring the accused to book and granting the victim justice. An analysis of the inquisitorial system proves that the depth of the inquiry is a matter in the hands of the judge. The judge designs the extent to which they may go in questioning the witnesses and in investigating the case. Since the police take part in the investigation process, they influence, to a great extent, the depth and scope of the research. For this case, the issue of racism is likely to affect the case the case in a negative manner. If the police officers are biased, as is the situation in this case, it is likely that this is likely to affect the depth of the inquiry. Corrupt or racial police officers are likely to intentionally divert the case and narrow the scope of the case. On the other hand, incompetence of the police officers, as shown by the report by Kent Police, reduced the scope of the cases and considerably reduced the depth of the investigation. For this reason, the MPS police officers could not provide sustainable evidence that could be used to prosecute the perpetrators of this case. The aspect of racism has been barrier in the judicial especially when the parties accused are natives and the victims come from the race of the minority of groups (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999, Para. 19.44). Therefore, the inquisitor approach has many weaknesses that inhibit the diligent process of guaranteeing sustainable evidence in the case determination. On the hand, the adversarial legal process of inquiry is competitive and puts then judge at bay in the investigation process. In this case, the parties of the case take opposite sides in the provision of evidence. The judge allows the adversaries to present new evidence, and paves way as the issues of the case unfold before him. The judge expects each party to take individual investigation and to present this evidence in the case. Therefore, the depth and the scope of the study, to a large extent, depend on the individual parties. The two sides decide which evidence and which issues they will raise in the court, which is completely opposite from the inquisitorial approach. The judge acts as a referee and arbitrator in guiding the parties on matters of fact pertaining to the law (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999). Therefore, the judge remains neutral in this case and has no control in the depth and scope of the case. From these facts, the adversarial approach gives the parties the liberty to dig as deep as possible in the truth and to broaden their scope as much as possible. For Lawrence’s case, this approach appears more suitable as it eliminates the bias that may arise due to the racial inclination of the case. Apart from this it ensures that the police and the judge remain neutral and have no influence on the truth. Therefore, the issues of incompetence and corruption that surrounded the first inquiry can be eliminated (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999, Para. 18.25). However, it is clear that this approach is purely competitive, and the parties only provide one-sided evidence. Therefore, it is likely that the parties may omit certain information that may affect the truth and focus on matters that would convince the judge to rule on their benefit. From this angle, the adversarial approach may affect the truth as the involved parties provide information that favours their arguments. A critical examination of the two approaches shows that the adversarial approach may positively affect the depth and scope of the inquiry, and hence may provide an opportunity for the disclosure of important evidence that may be hidden if the police and the judge actively participate in an inquisitor approach. Another issue that may affect the depth of the investigation process is the concept of limited immunity to the witnesses. Limited immunity grants that the answers of the five youths could not be used against them during the criminal proceedings. Granting the immunity is a strategy that the legal system uses to ensure that the witnesses provide crucial information that helps in revealing the truth about the case. However, in this case, it is clear that the youths provided vague and evasive confessions that contributed little in the decision of the case. On this note, limited immunity only served to narrow the scope of the case rather than widen it. Although the court does not allow perjury after granting limited immunity, there was no clear approach to identify if the youths lied under oath (Macpherson, Cook, Sentamu & Stone, 1999, Para. 7.43). From this point of view, providing immunity worked against the process of delivering justice to the affected party. It would be crucial that the team analyses the necessity of providing immunity to the youths. However, this may affect the way the youths respond to the issue or even the answers that they offer during interrogation. They are likely to lie in the case as a way of protecting themselves from the prosecution process. This poses a dilemma on the way forward in ensuring that the youths provide intelligence that the court can use to make decisions. In conclusion, Lawrence’s case is complex and surrounded by a number of limiting factors that may affect its prosecution. Since Lawrence comes from a minority group, the issues of racism and corruption are likely to impact on the evidence that the police gather to incriminate the perpetrators. Since there is evidence that police are easily influenced in cases that involve more than one race, an adversarial approach seems more beneficial in this process. As Macpherson points out, the Kent Police report shows that corruption, racism and incompetence contributed to the lack of sustainable evidence in the case. For this reason, engaging an adversarial approach will have the advantage of keeping the police and judge as neutral participants, and allowing the two parties to provide adequate evidence for case determination. A competitive approach will allow the two parties to broaden their scope and dig as deep as possible as the seek information that may help the judges rule in their favour. Although this approach appears to be competitive and likely to attract biased confessions, it appears more beneficial in a case that is in nature competitive. On the other side, providing partial immunity to the accused may have little influence on the scope and depth of the inquiry process, as the youths are likely to provide information that sets them free from the case. Bibliography Macpherson, W., Cook, T., Sentamu, J., & Stone, R. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Available at :< https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sstem/uploads/attachment_ data/file/277111/4262.pdf> Read More