Get answer

Here is an example of what your answers should look like:The adversarial legal system in the United States is somewhat different than what exists in many other countries. Here in the U.S., our system is defined by sides working to prove a case in front of a trier of fact, which is usually a jury but can also be a judge. Walpin (2003) contends the adversarial system is fairer than the inquisitional system used in other nations, such as Germany. The adversarial system ensures the attorneys representing a client are dedicated to the interest of that person, unlike the alternative in which the judge questions witnesses with no connection to either party (Walpin, 2003). The judge then issues a written judgment later, similar to what happens in the appeals process here in the U.S. A judge in the U.S. oftentimes serves as a mediator between the two, ruling on motions, legal procedures, and evidence admissibility. The prosecutor and defense attorney work to convince the jury, or judge in a bench trial, that the evidence fits their case.References:Walpin, G. (2003). America’s adversarial and jury systems: More likely to do justice. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 26(1), 176.Question 1 (10 points):How can police overcome impediments to building partnerships in lower-income neighborhoods?Question 2 (10 points):Why are partnerships with the media critical to the successful implementation of community policing?