Which system is more effective, the adversarial system as employed by the United States, or the civil law method used by many Continental European systems?

I think each system has its strengths and weaknesses. The adversarial system promotes a sense of competition, which is motivating for many Americans in our individualistic society. The civil system presents an air of teamwork, which may also work for some Americans. I believe that for the purposes of being motivated to work the case, the adversarial system will be more effective for many Americans.

In the civil system, both sides of the issue have access to all information. In the adversarial system, both sides are entitled to the evidence through the discovery process, but may not be entitled to the opposing counsel’s work product (except in some circumstances too broad for the scope of this discourse). For this issue, I believe the civil system will be more effective in gathering information to expedite the judicial process, as both sides are not doing essentially the same work. In the adversarial system, all opposing counsel will conduct their own investigations, interviews, read their own documents, etc. Two (or more) parties are essentially doing the same work, thus being less effective.

The adversarial system helps protect citizens’ Constitutional rights, specifically the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that criminal defendants are not required to testify against themselves. Presumably in a civil system, the defendant would not have this luxury, as both sides are seeking the truth, which may or may not result in zealous advocacy. The Sixth Amendment provides for assistance of counsel for one’s defense. Again, if the opposing counsel are essentially working together to seek the truth, the defendant may not have the benefit of zealous advocacy.

In re