Editing Adversarial system (section)

==Comparison with inquisitorial systems==
{{Unreferenced section|date=March 2023}}

The name "adversarial system" may be misleading in that it implies it is only within this type of system in which there are opposing prosecution and defense. This is not the case, and both modern adversarial and inquisitorial systems have the powers of the state separated between a prosecutor and the judge and allow the defendant the [[right to counsel]]. Indeed, the [[European Convention on Human Rights|European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]] in Article 6 requires these features in the legal systems of its signatory states.

One of the most significant differences between the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system occurs when a criminal defendant admits to the crime. In an adversarial system, there is no more controversy and the case proceeds to sentencing; though in many jurisdictions the defendant must have [[allocution]] of her or his crime; an obviously [[false confession]] will not be accepted even in common law courts. By contrast, in an inquisitorial system, the fact that the defendant has confessed is merely one more fact that is entered into evidence, and a confession by the defendant does not remove the requirement that the prosecution present a full case. This allows for [[plea bargain]]ing in adversarial systems in a way that is difficult or impossible in inquisitional system, and many felony cases in the United States are handled without trial through such plea bargains.  Plea bargains are becoming more common in 27 civil law countries.<ref name="Bicek, R.">{{cite web|last=Bicek|first=Rudolf|title= Plea bargaining: a new trend in European criminal proceedings |publisher= |date=January 2022|url=https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/plea-bargaining-a-new-trend-in-european-criminal-proceedings/}}</ref>