Another Country

Research another country's approach to determine the truth in a criminal proceeding and describe how it differs from the American jury system.

Aruba and the U.S. both have different approach in determine the truth in our criminal proceeding. In the U.S. we have an adversary system set up with judges, sometimes the media, lawyers’ courts, jury, & the prosecutor. Our purpose of a court trial is to bring all the evidence pertaining to the crime, including statements from witnesses, history of the criminal himself, and any physical evidence. Our intentions are to hand down a fair verdict which is rendered by either a jury or judges. The court hearing is needed so the convict is not unjustly accused of a crime he/she may have not committed.  

We have two conflicting sides, which include the accuser as well as the accused.   We have us a decision maker which is known as the judge or the jury. Generally we have 3 district parties in not only our civil matters but our criminal. Each of our antagonists' is given the right to present any evidence that will support their allegations and arguments’.

Aruba's court system is better known as the Dutch law. Which is called civil law, which is pretty much based on what is known as Roman laws, Our U.S. legal system along with most of our
Western nations is based on common law. There are huge differences’ between these two systems. For instance jury laws are not used under the Dutch law. Pretty much everything is brought to a person known as a trained judge. As one might know there is quite a few advantages to this. In our U.S. Adversary System a lot of time, money and deciding goes toward selecting and wavering our juries. However, such a person as a trained judge should have no issues in seeing right through the disposition of sleek lawyers.

So if it’s a corrupted judge he would basically have the only voice in a particular case. However, to keep this from happening, the defense or the prosecution can ask for a...