Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Wrongful Convictions in the Inquisitorial System

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_158


The purpose of any criminal justice system is to deliver justice to all by convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Two model systems exist, which provide different rules to deal with the offender and bring him to justice. They are commonly known as the inquisitorial criminal justice system and the adversarial criminal justice system. The adversarial system is the system of law generally adopted in common law countries, whereas the inquisitorial justice system is usually found on the continent of Europe among civil law systems. They both aim to ensure that procedural fairness exists across the criminal justice system. Nowadays, however, it is commonly assumed that no criminal justice system belongs entirely to one of these two models.

Within the literature on wrongful convictions, most of the attention has been devoted to wrongful convictions in which innocent people have been convicted after trial. However, the reality today is that the normal trial proceeding is...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Arn R, Saurer N, Kuhn A (eds) (2011) Organisation der kantonalen und eidgenössischen Strafbehörden. Organisation des autorités pénales cantonales et fédérales. Organizzazione delle autorità penali cantonali e federali. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, BaselGoogle Scholar
  2. Barkow RE (2006) Separation of powers and the criminal law. Stanford Law Rev 58:989–1054Google Scholar
  3. Bundesrat (2005) Botschaft zur Vereinheitlichung des Strafprozessrechts. BernGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornu P (2000) The Swiss public prosecutor’s office: its role in criminal procedure, its relations with political authorities and the police, its role in crime policy. In: Council of Europe (ed) What public prosecution in Europe in the 21st century. Proceedings, Strasbourg, 22–24 May 2000. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilliéron G (2010) Strafbefehlsverfahren und plea bargaining als Quelle von Fehlurteilen. Schulthess, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  6. Hauser R, Schweri E, Hartmann K (2005) Schweizerisches Strafrecht, 6th edn. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, BaselGoogle Scholar
  7. Hutzler D (2010) Ausgleich struktureller Garantiedefizite im Strafbefehlsverfahren. Eine analyse der Zürcherischen, Schweizerischen und Deutschen Regelungen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der geständnisfunktion. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  8. Killias M (2008) Wrongful conviction in Switzerland: the experience of a continental law country. In: Huff CR, Killias M (eds) Wrongful conviction. International perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Killias M, Gwladys G, Nathalie D (2007) Erreurs judiciaires en Suisse de 1995–2004. Report to the Swiss National Science Foundation. University of Lausanne and University of Zurich, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  10. Langbein JH (1974) Controlling prosecutorial discretion in Germany. Univ Chicago Law Rev 41:439–457Google Scholar
  11. Lynch GE (1998) Our administrative system of criminal justice. Fordham Law Rev 66:2117–2151Google Scholar
  12. Lynch GE (2003) Screening versus plea bargaining: exactly what are we trading of? Stanford Law Rev 55:1399–1408Google Scholar
  13. Maguire K (ed) (2010) Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics [Online]. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Table 5.22). http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5222010.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2011
  14. Notter P, Arnold C, von Erlach E, Hertig P (2006) Lesen und Rechnen im Alltag. Grundkompetenzen von erwachsenen in der Schweiz. Office fédéral de la statistique (OFS), NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  15. Peters K (1970–1974) Fehlerquellen im Strafprozess. Eine Untersuchung der Wiederaufnahmeverfahren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (3 vols). C.F. Müller, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  16. Piquerez G (2006) Traité de procédure pénale Suisse, 2nd edn. Schulthess, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomas GC (2008) The supreme court on trial. How the American justice system sacrifices innocent defendants. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  18. Trechsel S, Martin K (2004) Law of criminal procedure. In: François D, Tugrul A (eds) Introduction to Swiss law, 3rd edn. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  19. Walpin G (2003) America’s adversarial and jury systems: more likely to do justice. Harvard J Law Publ Policy 26:175–186Google Scholar
  20. Wright RF (2009) How prosecutor elections fail us. Ohio State J Crim Law 6:581–610Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Distance Learning University SwitzerlandBrigSwitzerland