51 Pages Posted: 10 Jun 2013
Date Written: December 8, 2012
Research is focused on the field of comparative criminal procedure. Classical distinction between accusatorial and inquisitorial approaches, which are found in common law and civil law systems respectively are examinated. Inquisitorial criminal procedure, which is followed in continental Europe, has a pejorative connotation by contrast to accusatorial one.
Both inquisitorial and accusatorial models are seen as irreconcilable and as having conflicting characteristics. However, in practice, both models are not as different as the abstract descriptions suggest. The criminal procedures followed in continental Europe, influenced by American practices, have many of the features associated with the accusatorial/adversarial models. In addition, in accusatorial and/or adversarial systems, especially in the United States, the trial is not the general rule. In fact, in more than 90% of criminal cases in the United States, resolution is reached through plea bargaining. This is now a part of the adversarial system that also represents a failure of the system as far as the trial, which should be the general rule, is now the exception.
My proposal is that we should eliminate the two categories or labels (inquisitorial and accusatorial) for two reasons. First, the distinction is no longer accurate. The two models might have had distinctive and competing characteristics in the past, but this is no longer the case. Second, there is no longer a clear distinction between the two models because of the ways these models have influenced each other, especially the influence of the Anglo-American model on the European model.
Keywords: criminal procedure, comparative approach, inquisitorial and accusatorial models, adversarial and non adversarial trial
JEL Classification: K14, K19, K40, K49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Jimeno-Bulnes, Mar, American Criminal Procedure in a European Context (December 8, 2012). Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (JICL), Vol. 21, No. 2, 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2276682 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2276682