How do the inquisitorial and adversarial systems differ in court proceedings?

The inquisitorial system is characterized by the court's active role in investigating and determining the facts of a case. In this system, judges or magistrates take on a more hands-on approach, gathering evidence, questioning witnesses, and actively guiding the proceedings to establish the truth. This contrasts with the adversarial system, where the responsibility for presenting evidence and arguing the case lies primarily with the parties involved—typically the prosecution and the defense—while the judge acts more as a neutral referee.

In the inquisitorial approach, the emphasis is on finding the truth through a collaborative fact-finding process, rather than relying solely on the parties to present their respective arguments and evidence. This system is common in many civil law jurisdictions and affects how cases are structured, the role of legal professionals, and the rights of the parties involved.

The other options do not accurately describe the differences between the two systems. For instance, the adversarial system is generally considered more formal due to its structured procedures and requirements. While jury trials are a notable feature of the adversarial system, they are not necessarily detailed in the way implied. Lastly, the inquisitorial system allows for appeals, contrary to the assertion that it does not, ensuring there is a mechanism for reviewing decisions made in lower courts