University of ABC: Business and Professional Ethics Report, Semester 1

This report delves into the realm of business and professional ethics, examining the adversarial and inquisitorial systems within the legal framework. It scrutinizes the limitations of the adversarial system, highlighting the potential for biased outcomes and the influence of resource disparities. The report then analyzes the inquisitorial system, discussing its potential for bias. The discussion continues with an exploration of the criminal justice system, including the screening processes involved. It examines the viewpoints of legal scholars and explores the role of attorneys in the justice system. The report references specific articles and provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations in the legal and business contexts.

Running head: MANAGEMENT 1
Business and Professional Ethics
Name
Tutor
Date

MANAGEMENT 2
Question 1
Many academicians criticize the adversarial system claiming that legal development and
argument, is left solely on parties who are pursuing their own interests. This leads to partial and
partisan information, thus distorted outcomes. Also, parties do not have equality of arms hence a
party with better resources in terms of gathering evidence, presenting a stronger case than their
opponent is likely to win. Another disadvantage is that the involved parties present the evidence
they wish to present, most of the times which suits them and winning is the only objective and
the other factors like justice become secondary. The inquisitorial system, on the other hand, can
lead to bias, because the judge steers the whole process leading the preparation and collection of
evidence (Meadow, 2019).
Question 2
While high profile cases can be biased, Jurors do not always have the knowledge to decide on
high aptitude cases according to Eric Funchs. In view of this, the national judicial college would
argue that directions can be an adequate remedy for any jury when they are presented with
technical evidence. On the other hand, Paul Mendele would argue that although the judicial
system is fallible, as human is to error, the jurors get it right most of the time. Most of them
make decisions depending on the evidence presented to them.
Question 3
When Mitchell states that the criminal justice system is a screening system and not truth seeking
system, she speaks from her experience with the criminal justice system. She asserts that through
her representation, many people who she knew had committed crimes were acquitted. She asserts

MANAGEMENT 3
that the police are the ones who pick, screening those they deem, defiant and present them to the
judiciary system who then make the final screening and decision. According to this article, the
system is pegged more on protecting the ‘dangerous innocent’ even if it means setting free those
who are guilty, reducing it to a screening system of the guilty and the innocent. Also for those
who are charged, the process ensures that a person is screened with as little disruption as possible
while returning them back to the society (Mitchell, 1979).
The system according to Mitchell is a series of screening processes; it requires that police
officers have probable cause or raises reasonable suspicion to be arrested. The burden of proof
also requires that the prosecution case proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
If the evidence presented is not sufficient, one can be granted a new trial, taking them to another
level of screening. Courts through their procedures screen out defendants who should not face
trial. The appellate court further screens evidence by courts, police and witnesses used to reach
certain findings. The attorneys influence how the screening process will take place, and ensure
that the dangerous persons are treated well. Their paramount role however, is to be teachers who
defend morals and values according to Mitchell.

MANAGEMENT 4
References
Meadow, C.M. (2019). The Limits of Adverserial Ethics. Oxford University Press., 123-150
Mitchell, J. B. (1979). The Ethics of the Criminal Defense Attorney--New Answers to Old
Questions. Stan. L. Rev., 32, 293.