The adversary system shouldn’t be considered the most efficient because of cost, time, and waste. The adversarial system used in courts blends with individualism and competition. In an adversary system both sides have equal opportunities to plead their case and criticize the other one. In the most convincing one wins; preferably the “right” one. America’s idea of free market capitalism and competition highly values individualism over collectivism. In going in to court under the adversarial system, there is a winner or loser, unlike in Alternative Dispute Resolution where a compromise can be sought. While a party may “win” in an adversarial system, the costs of taking legal action to both sides may outweigh the benefit. My opinion is that the adversarial system is weak because as the wealthier party has the advantage of hiring a better legal team, while the underdog is limited by his own wealth. I also believe that this flaw in favor of the richer party is inherent in many political and economic issues, as argued in the critical legal studies school, and could be part of our “value” of making the rich even more rich. It also plays a huge part in culture because all ethnicities isn’t treated the same. Many African Americans in the “The Adversary System in Civil Litigation” states, “That’s its essential for judicial system to start playing its part.” So overall, the system done its part but it isn’t the most efficient system. The adversary system shouldn’t be considered the most efficient because of cost, time, and waste. The adversarial system used in courts blends with individualism and competition. In an adversary system both sides have equal opportunities to plead their case and criticize the other one. In the most convincing one wins; preferably the “right” one. America’s idea of free market capitalism and competition highly values individualism over collectivism. In going in to court under the adversarial system, there is a winner or loser, unlike in Alternative Dispute Resolution where a compromise can be sought. While a party may “win” in an adversarial system, the costs of taking legal action to both sides may outweigh the benefit. My opinion is that the adversarial system is weak because as the wealthier party has the advantage of hiring a better legal team, while the underdog is limited by his own wealth. I also believe that this flaw in favor of the richer party is inherent in many political and economic issues, as argued in the critical legal studies school, and could be part of our “value” of making the rich even more rich. It also plays a huge part in culture because all ethnicities isn’t treated the same. Many African Americans in the “The Adversary System in Civil Litigation” states, “That’s its essential for judicial system to start playing its part.” So overall, the system done its part but it isn’t the most efficient system.
The adversary system shouldn’t be considered the most efficient because of cost, time, and waste. The adversarial system used in courts blends with individualism and competition. In an adversary system both sides have equal opportunities to plead their case and criticize the other one. In the most convincing one wins; preferably the “right” one. America’s idea of free market capitalism and competition highly values individualism over collectivism. In going in to court under the adversarial system, there is a winner or loser, unlike in Alternative Dispute Resolution where a compromise can be sought. While a party may “win” in an adversarial system, the costs of taking legal action to both sides may outweigh the benefit. My opinion is that the adversarial system is weak because as the wealthier party has the advantage of hiring a better legal team, while the underdog is limited by his own wealth. I also believe that this flaw in favor of the richer party is inherent in many political and economic issues, as argued in the critical legal studies school, and could be part of our “value” of making the rich even more rich. It also plays a huge part in culture because all ethnicities isn’t treated the same. Many African Americans in the “The Adversary System in Civil Litigation” states, “That’s its essential for judicial system to start playing its part.” So overall, the system done its part but it isn’t the most efficient system.
The adversary system shouldn’t be considered the most efficient because of cost, time, and waste. The adversarial system used in courts blends with individualism and competition. In an adversary system both sides have equal opportunities to plead their case and criticize the other one. In the most convincing one wins; preferably the “right” one. America’s idea of free market capitalism and competition highly values individualism over collectivism. In going in to court under the adversarial system, there is a winner or loser, unlike in Alternative Dispute Resolution where a compromise can be sought. While a party may “win” in an adversarial system, the costs of taking legal action to both sides may outweigh the benefit. My opinion is that the adversarial system is weak because as the wealthier party has the advantage of hiring a better legal team, while the underdog is limited by his own wealth. I also believe that this flaw in favor of the richer party is inherent in many political and economic issues, as argued in the critical legal studies school, and could be part of our “value” of making the rich even more rich. It also plays a huge part in culture because all ethnicities isn’t treated the same. Many African Americans in the “The Adversary System in Civil Litigation” states, “That’s its essential for judicial system to start playing its part.” So overall, the system done its part but it isn’t the most efficient system.