Mechanically agitated fermenters

Mechanically agitated fermenters Abstract Traditional mechanical agitation fermenters have dominated the industry since the antibiotic era as needs changed new fermenter designs were created. As a result air lift agitated fermenters were created and have many merits in comparison to mechanical agitation fermenters. In this essay we will go through both systems merits in regards to mixing, aeration, practicality and energy costs Introduction Agitators are mechanical instruments used to mix substances, Fermentation is an age old art in which organic substances are broken down and reassembled into other substances. Fermenters are large bioreactors in which fermentation occurs, fermenters are the instruments employed to manufacture economically viable biological products. Their basic function is to provide a controlled environment in order to achieve optimal growth and product formation of the particular biological product required. For biotech and pharmaceutical purposes the products from fermentation are microbial cells or biomass, enzymes, and microbial metabolites such as antibiotics and ethanol. The basic desired functional properties of all Fermenters are that they can create gas liquid interfaces without making foam a problem. They should sufficiently hold up dispersed phases and allow reasonable heat transfer. They should also be able to control bulk flow so no dead zones can form. In league with these functional re quirements they should be cheap, robust and have a simple mechanical design additionally they should have low power consumption and be easy to scale up. In this essay we will compare two different types of Fermenters, airlift Fermenters and mechanically agitated Fermenters. Both types of mixers within Fermenters results in the intermingling of two or more dissimilar portions of material resulting in the acquirement of either physical or chemical uniformity in the final product. In industrial fermentation reactions there is a basic requirement of substrate, organism, water and oxygen. Mixing within Fermenters usually causes equilibrium between, rate, purity and production yield. Mechanical agitators are used in traditional Fermenters for mixing they maintain optimum substrate biomass concentration everywhere, keeps solid suspended, disperse oxygen, and allow an upkeep of total bubble surface area and the recycling of air bubbles (figure 1). Mechanically agitated Fermenters Mechanically agitated Fermenters require a relatively high input of energy per unit volume. In these systems a large variety of impeller shapes and sizes are available to produce different flow patterns inside the Fermenter. The use of multiple impellers produces better mixing that works in addition with baffles that are normally used to reduce vortexing. Approximately 70-80% of the volume of stirred reactors is filled with liquid. Foaming may be a problem with this type of Fermenter. Foam breakers, may be necessary. It is better to use mechanical anti foamers over chemical anti foamers because the chemicals often reduce oxygen transfer rate. One of the limits of this system is the use of high speed impellers can damage and even destroy cells. Aspect ratios of these Fermenters vary over a wide range. For aeration to be increased a higher aspect ratio is needed (H/D rates). Increased aeration results in greater contact times between liquid and rising bubbles and produces hydrostatic p ressure at the bottom of the Fermenter. Bubble column /Air Lift Fermenters In these systems aeration and mixing are achieved by gas sparging. Gas is sparged only into the riser. Decreased liquid fluid density and gas accumulation cause the liquid in the riser to mover upwards. Gas disengages at the top of the vessel leaving heavier bubble-free liquid to recirculate through the downcomer. This process needs less energy than mechanical stirring. This mixing, method is used in the production of beer and bakers yeast. The advantages of this method over mechanical agitation are, lack of moving parts, low capital costs satisfactory mass and heat transfer. Air lifted Fermenters produce heterogeneous and homogenous medium flows. In heterogeneous flow, Bubbles and liquids tend to rise up in the center of the column while a corresponding down flow of liquid occurs near the walls. In Homogenous flow, bubbles rise with the same upward velocity with no back-mixing of the gas phase. Foaming may also be a problem with these Fermenters. There are two kinds of air lift Ferm enters internal loop and external loop Fermenters. Mixing is better in external loop Fermenters because the riser and downcomers are further apart in external loop vessels which cause the density difference between fluids in the downcomer and riser to be greater meaning circulation of the liquid vessel is faster due to fewer bubbles being carried to the downcomer. Airlift Fermenter are normally used for the culture of immobilized catalyst and the culture of plant and animal cells because of their low sheer level. Mixing Stirred Fermenters and air lifted Fermenters both offer adequate mixing and mass transfer. However when a large Fermenter is required (50-500M3) for a low viscosity medium air lift vessels may be a better choice due to their advantages. These being they are cheap to install and operate. When scale up is required large mechanical agitators are impractical as the power required to achieve adequate mixing becomes very high. Mechanical agitators are used for high viscosity cultures. Mass transfer rates decline at viscosities greater than 50-100 cP. Mechanical agitation creates much more heat than sparging of compressed gas. This can become a problem when the reaction temperature is high for example when trying to produce single celled proteins from methanol, removal of frictional stirrer heat can be problematic this is where air-lift agitation is preferred. Comparison In brief the conventional, stirred tank bioreactor has dominated the industry since its successful application in the antibiotic era and most fermentation processes today use Fermenters of this type because of this. However due to change in the industry in regards to products in demand. Such as the growth of hydrodomas cell and recombinant DNA technologies of genetically modified cells of plant, microbial and mammalian origin imposed new demands that traditional agitators could not provide at an economically viable level. For this reason new novel Fermenters where designed and put into use. The air lift Fermenter being one of them. The air lift Fermenter has no movable parts or motors the only power requirement comes from the air compressors that provide air through the sparging system. No mechanical agitation occurs, the air bubbles forced through the sparger cause induced turbulent liquid mixing and mass transfer in which mixing rates and aeration rates are coupled together. Their main advantage is low sheer and energy requirement along with aseptic seals not being required around the shaft which makes them highly suitable for producing single celled protein. Additionally in air lift Fermenters mixing is improved by the inclusion of a draught tube to impart a circulation loop which produces a higher oxygen mass coefficient (KLA). The Air lift Fermenters are ideal when there is need for gentle agitation. Whereas the conventional mechanical agitated Fermenters have a broader range of application but they have a poorly defined mixing pattern in comparison to airlift Fermenters. Additionally they cannot be aerated at a high enough rate due to impeller flooding. Practicality wise they have a long life, the mechanical agitation configuration has become too established in processes for new methodologies to replace them. It would be too expensive to do. Aeration To provide aeration into a vessel means to supply or expose the medium to the circulation of air. Airlifted Fermenters provide a much greater aeration than mechanical agitators as gas is constantly pumped into the medium and consequently causes fluid circulation. Aeration within a mechanically agitated Fermenter is controlled by the type of impeller and baffle system. For example Turbines, propellers and paddles are generally used in low viscosity systems and operate at high rotational speed inside the Fermenter. Turbines are normally used for dispersion of gases in liquids. There are many types angled-blade turbines and retreating-blade turbines, the rushton/inclined six blade impeller. Similarly for large vessels with high aspect ratios it is common practice to mount more than one impeller of the same shaft. Baffles are of particular importance as they prevent gross vortexing which is detrimental to mixing/ aeration they are normally fitted on the walls of a vessel. Practicality Depending on the product being produced in the Fermenter and the viscosity of the medium practicality of mechanical and airlift agitators differ. Mechanical agitators are very practical when it comes to mixing highly viscous non Newtonian mediums however the power for this can be very high and subsequently this increases the costs. Additionally the practicality of the Fermenter being used in regards to merits is determined by the type of product being produced, the microbiology of particular cell systems in use coupled with the morphology and nutritional requirements needed for optimal growth. The geometric configuration of the Fermenter play an important role. Effective mixing to minimise temperature, PH concentration gradient are very important particularly with mechanically agitated Fermenters especially when a process is scaled up. Additionally the viscosity of the medium plays an important role, does the medium behave in a Newton or non Newton manner is it a solid or liquid sta te fermentation. The sheering effect of a particular agitation system dictates whether sheer sensitive cells can be cultivated. All of this is taken into account keeping in mind what is best for economic performance. For example large mechanical agitators have better Practical use than air lift agitators for use with the following cell systems, these are immobilised Bacteria, yeast and plant cells and are used for the for the production of products such as ethanol, monoclonal antibodies, growth factors and medicinal products. This is because they can tolerate sheer at a level best for productivity. Resulting in large quantities of moderate quality products with good profit costs. Alternatively air lift agitators are generally used for the cell systems of bacteria yeast and other fungi producing products such as single celled proteins E.G. Quorn, enzymes, secondary metabolites and biosurfactants. This is because they are more economically practical due to them having low sheer values meaning they do not damage the cells, they have much lower running costs and they can produce higher value sheer sensitive GM pr oducts. Furthermore when it comes to scale up with airlifted Fermenters it can be difficult to alter stirring rates making it difficult to deal with important rheological changes and foaming. This is where mechanically agitated Fermenters are favoured. Also air lifted Fermenters are less flexible than mechanically agitated systems as Aeration is responsible for homogenization. Energy use and Cost Mechanical agitators use more energy have moving parts, seals and are more expensive to run than airlift fermenters. The main benefit of air-lift Fermenters over mechanical agitators is that they can be constructed at much greater reactor volumes air-lift Fermenters can be built at volumes of several thousands cubic meters while mechanical operated agitators can be scaled up to a maximum of 800-1500 m3 (Ruitenberg et al 2001) As a consequence of this the investment costs of air-lift Fermenters is significantly lower when compared to mechanically operated agitators of the same capacity. At higher volumes mechanical agitators cause mechanical problems because of the large power requirements of the impeller. Furthermore, scale-up of air-lift Fermenters is much more straight forward than that of mechanical agitated fermenters. Scale-up from a 5 m3 pilot to 1500 m3 and larger is well defined. (Ruitenberg et al 2001) Figure 3 shows the Capital cost comparison of air-lift Fermenters vs. mechanical agitated fermenters. The cost for a mechanically agitated fermenter is defined as 1 for a 1500 m3 tank. The c ost of a 1500 m3 air-lift fermenter is a bit lower than that of the equivalent mechanically agitated fermenter. However, the investment cost follows the 0.6 rule until 6000 m3 is reached. Above 6000 m3, more than one air lift fermenter may need to be used. Another advantage of air-lift fementers over mechanical agitated fermenters is that the oxygen input efficiency is the same or better at considerably lower shear. Additionally Because no moving parts are present in air-lift Fermenters, the costs for maintenance will be lower as compared to mechanically agitated fermenters. The combination of high oxygen input efficiencies and low maintenance costs results in lower operational costs. Shear rates are much lower in air-lift Fermenters than in mechanically agitated fermenters. Low shear rates facilitate growth of biofilms, which can increase the reaction rate. This advantage is thought to be greatest when thermophilic bacteria are used. Because a three-phase settler can be integrated on top of an air-lift fermenter, the solids retention time can be separated from the hydraulic retention time causing biomass retention, (Ruitenberg et al 2001) Conclusion Mechanically agitated Fermenters have been in use since the beginning of the industry however due to changes in demand that comes with time in regards to technology and products needed novel Fermenter ideals were designed and put into fruition the air lift Fermenter is but one. In many ways this air lift agitators have many advantages as was just discussed. References Barker, T. W. and J. T. Worgan (1981). The Application of Air-Lift Fermenters to the Cultivation of Filamentous Fungi. European Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 13(2): 77-83. Chisti, Y. and U. J. Jauregui-Haza (2002). Oxygen transfer and mixing in mechanically agitated airlift bioreactors. Biochemical Engineering Journal 10(2): 143-153. Fontana, R. C., T. A. Polidoro, et al. (2009). Comparison of stirred tank and airlift bioreactors in the production of polygalacturonases by Aspergillus oryzae. Bioresource Technology 100(19): 4493-4498. Margaritis, A. and J. B. Wallace (1984). Novel Bioreactor Systems and Their Applications. Bio-Technology 2(5): 447-453. Ruitenberg, R., C. E. Schultz, et al. (2001). Bio-oxidation of minerals in air-lift loop bioreactors. International Journal of Mineral Processing 62(1-4): 271-278. Williams, J. A. (2002). Keys to bioreactor selections. Chemical Engineering Progress 98(3): 34-41.

Research Study Paper

Article two by Grainiest & Colliers (2012) â€Å"Fellowship's experiences of organizational leadership: A systems psychodrama perspective† was chosen for leadership and article three was carefully chosen for this paper. â€Å"Followers' Personality and the Perception of Transformational Leadership: Further Evidence for the Similarity Hypothesis† by the authors Flee, J. , & Synchs, B. (2010) came from the reference list of article one. These articles titles in comparison all are related to followers' in an organization and show how followers' personality, preferences, and experiences affect how hey perceive leadership.The purpose of the study in article one, the authors wanted the findings built upon the â€Å"Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE study)† by analyzing the personalities Of the participants and the impact on implicit leadership views. Article two's purpose for the study is to describe follower-ship exper iences of organizational leadership from a systems psychodrama perspective and the aim of article three's study is to extend previous research on the relationship between follower's personality and the perception and acceptance of ramifications leadership.The comparison of the studies show how followers' personality, preferences, and experiences affect how they perceive leadership in organizations. The authors rational for the topic in article one is â€Å"the primary focus of the GLOBE study and to analyze how cultural preferences predicted leadership preferences. † (Palmer, et al. , 2013, peg. 56) This study added significantly to the body of literature related to implicit leadership and the study did not report how participants' personalities impacted their views of leadership.In article two, the authors' build a strong ease that has given them motivation for the study and their rationale for the topic is because â€Å"the research was important in its rich comment on org anizational leadership as expressed by fellowship in a contained space and interpreting the views from below the surface† (Grainiest, et al. 201 2, peg. 6) which are not expressed in organizations generally and easily. The authors' also commented on how there is no previous research on the topic.Finally in article three, the author's build a plausible case that provide evidence that followers personality influences the perceptions of ramifications leadership and commitment to the leader. For the author's to do their study, they reversed the order of variables in which the leaders affect their followers' attitudes and behaviors to the followers' reactions to leaders as the independent variables and the leaders as the dependent variable. The comparison of the rational in each article provides the prediction of followers' personality whether through the GLOBE study or as one particular leadership style.Research Questions The research questions in each of the articles provide the researcher the tools needed to test their theories. In article one, Palmer along with the other authors provided the following hypotheses to be tested in their study. 1 . DO followers' personality in neurotics correlate with Charismatic Leadership and Directive Leadership? 2. Does Extroversion correlate how followers perceive with preferences to Directive Leadership, Bureaucratic Leadership, or Self Serving Leadership? 3. Does Agreeableness correlate with followers' personality for Charismatic Leadership, Directive Leadership, and Self Serving Leadership? . Do Openness correlate with Directive Leadership, Bureaucratic, and Self Serving Leadership? These hypotheses of followers' neurotics, extroversion, agreeableness, and openness may be positively correlated to Charismatic and Directive leadership but my impact Bureaucratic and Self Serving leadership negatively. Article two state â€Å"given the aforementioned complexity on the macro, mess, and micro leadership levels (Greenest, e t al. , 201 2, peg. 3); the authors wanted to know whether leadership is an anxiety for followers. Also, followers' experiences and how they perceive race and gender in leadership.The following hypotheses are tested: 1) What is fellowship's systems psychodrama experience of organization leadership? 2) Is leadership an anxiety for followers that is an object split between a â€Å"good parent and a bad parent' theory? 3) How does followers experience of organizational leadership denigrating the present and hoping for a good future like â€Å"good bread with bad butter in between'? 4) Do followers perceive race and gender play a part in leadership? 5) Do followers believe leadership is experiencing an adolescent type of identity crises? ) Why do followers perceive leadership as a bad object containing unsolvable shame and haunting organizations? 7) Do coping with existential anxiety round leadership based on trusting the systemic and unconscious life forces towards equilibrium, linke d with an inner strength to survive? Article three tests the hypotheses for followers â€Å"high in extroversion, agreeableness and openness are assumed to perceive or attributed more transformational leadership and to show more affective commitment to their supervisors† (Flee, et al. , 2010, peg. 98) in relation to followers' perceptions of transformational leadership and the affective commitment to the supervisor and the personalities of leaders. The authors' hypotheses mentioned are: 1) Followers extroversion is positively related to the perception Of transformational leadership and to the affective commitment to the supervisor, whereas the relationship with continuance commitment is negative. 2) Followers' agreeableness is positively related to the perception of transformation leadership and to the affective commitment to the supervisor, whereas the relationship with continuance commitment is negative. ) Followers' openness is positively related to the affective commitmen t to the negative. 4) Followers' neurotics is negatively related to the perception of prevision, whereas the relationship with continuance commitment is positive. 5) Followers' perception of leaders' personality (high extroversion, high agreeableness, high openness and low neurotics) is related to the perception of transformational leadership and to affective commitment to the supervisor. ) Relationship between follower personality and the perception of transformational leadership and commitment to the supervision are mediated by the perception of one's leader's personality. A comparison of the research questions show article one with four hypotheses, article two with seven, and article three with six hypotheses Sample Population The sample population in each of these articles show a comparison that mostly women were used in the studies. The first article shows that it used 132 college educated, full time managers or leaders in an organizations with there being 81 females and 48 mal es within these groups.Out of the 1 32 participant, 75 were Hispanic, 30 Blacks, 12 White and 15 who were of other ethnicities and their age average of 40 years. There are 8 newly identified cases on leaders of large organizations in article two with 64 participants insisting of 52% White, 33% Black, 9% Indian, and 6% other with 58% participants being female and 42% male between the ages of 28 and 61 years. Article three participants in the study are 1 53 clerical volunteers and women being 75% of the workers with the average mean of 36. 5 in their ages.A comparison shows that show women were mostly interviewed. What does not compare, is that article two did not have as many participants as one and three. Article three did not mention ethnicity or race as did articles one and two. Results Examining the results of each study, the authors in their perspective articles how that their hypotheses are mostly positive and correlate to the given research questions. In article one, the curre nt study found the personality trait of followers' on agreeableness as being a predictor high on leadership.New experiences for followers openness is incongruent with Bureaucratic Leadership, but personality traits related to â€Å"Charismatic, Value-Based Team dervish and Directive Leadership, and negatively related to Bureaucratic Leadership and Self-Serving Leadership. † (Farmer, et al. , 201 3, peg. 62) Neurotics was positively correlated with preferences for Charismatic Leadership and Directive Leadership. Extroversion was positively correlated with preferences for Directive Leadership and negatively correlated with tolerance for Bureaucratic and Self-serving Leadership.Agreeableness was positively correlated with preferences for Charismatic Leadership and Directive Leadership and negatively correlated with tolerance for Self-Serving dervish. Openness was positively correlated with preferences for Directive leadership and negatively correlated with tolerance for Bureaucr atic and Self- Serving Leadership. Whereas in article two, leadership is seen from followers' experience is torn between the rational and mechanistic task and leaders avoiding how followers as people are being cared for. Followers perceive leaders as adults who treat them as children.Although article three states â€Å"followers' extroversion and agreeableness were positively related to the perception of overall transformational leadership and to affective commitment to the supervisor, the relationship between followers' extroversion and continuance commitment to the supervisor was negative and agreeableness was not related to continuance commitment. † (Grainiest, et al. , 201 2 peg. 01) Openness, transformational leadership, and commitment are correlated in a direction that is positive, with continuance commitment showing only a significance to leaders.Neurotics is negatively related to followers' perception of affective commitment and transformational leadership. The percep tions of transformational leadership was positively related to perceived leaders' extroversion, openness, and agreeableness and negatively related to perceived leaders' neurotics. â€Å"There is support for the mediation effect Of extroversion and agreeableness, a tentative support for neurotics but no support for openness. (Flee, et al. , 201 0, peg. 93) Therefore, the comparison of the hypotheses is that follower's perceptions of leadership through followers' personality traits see leadership as not caring and followers' are agreeable to prevent conflict and the perception of transformational leadership is the leadership that followers perceive their leaders to be. Conclusion The limitations of article one are the use of the GLOBE questionnaire using two empirical pilot studies. Article two mentioned a limitation that leadership was included in the study therefore, no interpretation about the other's view an be made.Article three's data is cross-sectional and they cannot rule out that transformational leadership influences followers' self-perception and their influence of personality characteristics examined in this study is limited. The comparison of the limitations is that the authors' were not able to provide enough data using data from previous studies. In conclusion, Palmer and the other authors from article one in their findings found that extroversion in leadership is strongly correlated to effective leadership and their study found the personality trait of followers in agreeableness is insistent in regards to leadership.From article 2, leadership is by followers' views is seen as a relationship that Sees followers as immature. The authors also suggested future research should be done to include the leadership experiences of fellowship and to conclude with article three, the findings the authors found suggests that leaders influence strongly the behaviors and attitudes of followers in commitment, performance, and satisfaction. Elevating followers' mo tives and values, the transformational leadership sets leaders' behaviors as a proven effect in organizations.

The Criminal Justice System Of The San Diego Sheriff s...

I interviewed Doug Brassington who worked for the San Diego Sheriff’s department for 23 years. He worked his way up to the rank of detective and also worked as a school resource officer. He enjoyed working as a school resource officer the most because he was helping students. He also told me his insights about the criminal justice system. First he explained that the minimum requirements to get hired was a high school degree, but many of the people he worked with had an Associates or Master’s degree. He said that he had a Master’s degree, which helped him get promoted to detective. Once a department hires someone they put them through all of the necessary training to perform the tasks required. So, even though the minimum requirement is a†¦show more content†¦He really enjoyed seeing how his work affected students’ lives for the better. His least favorite part of this job was dealing with the parents because a lot of parents would not believe that their child had done anything wrong, so they would not help turn their child away from dangerous activities. This perspective is interesting because it shows that parents do not always know what their child is doing and may be too stubborn to address an issue that concerns police. Then he explained to me how often police officers must testify in court. He mentioned that officers who do traffic stops must testify in court 3-5 times a week. They rarely have to appear in jury trials, and simply explain the situation to a judge. As a detective Brassington would have to testify in front of a jury 2-3 times every month. As we learned in chapter 8 relaying what happened to a victim or what was found at a crime scene would make police officers lay witnesses. Which means they explain to a jury the facts and what evidence was found at the scene. He believes that punishment should depend on the crime. If it is a minor crime like drug possession or petty theft they should pay a fine and be required to take classes that try to fix the behavior. If it is their first time caught committing a crime law enforcement must â€Å"put the fear of god in them.† Meaning that the police must work to deter them from committing another crime

Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2705 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? An inquisitorial system of criminal justice offers the best system for ensuring that those guilty of committing criminal offences are convicted and that the innocent are acquitted. Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Defined and Compared In England and Wales and other common law countries such as the United States, criminal proceedings are operated on the basis of what is sometimes referred to as an adversarial system of justice. This differs from the so-called inquisitorial system of justice which is employed in other legal jurisdictions including, in particular many continental European jurisdictions.[1] Briefly, in the adversarial system the sitting magistrates or in more serious cases a jury decides on guilt having heard the opposing defence and prosecution presentations of the case. The defence and prosecution parties are at liberty to deliver their case as they deem appropriate within certain boundaries, and they are free to call and examine witne sses as they see fit. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems" essay for you Create order Not guilty pleas result in what effectively amounts to a contest between the two parties debating the facts of a case and this is the origin of the term adversarial.[2] The adversarial system therefore relies on the skill of the opposing advocates representing their respective partys interests and not on some neutral party, usually the judge, trying to ascertain the truth of the case. Judges in an adversarial system are generally bound to focus their efforts on ensuring the fair play of due process, and fundamental justice. Inter alia, adversarial judges determine, typically when called upon by counsel rather than of their own motion, what evidence is to be admitted when there is a dispute. On the other hand, as stated above, the inquisitorial system is that which is employed on the continent of Europe among most (but not all) systems of civil law (ie. those deriving from the Roman or Napoleonic Codes).[3] The inquisitorial system requires a judge or a group of judges actively to investigate the case before them. An inquisitorial system can therefore be defined as a legal system in which the court or a part of the court is proactively involved in determining the facts of the case. This differs from the adversarial system where, as stated, the function of the court is solely to act as an impartial arbiter and referee between parties concerned. In general terms the inquisitorial system is applicable to questions of criminal procedure as distinct from matters of substantial law; that is to say, an inquisitorial system determines the way in which criminal inquiries and trials are conducted, not the type of crimes which can be prosecuted, or the range of sentences that they may carry. That said, the line between adversarial and inquisitorial systems is to some extent blurred. In some adversarial jurisdictions the trial judge is entitled to participate in the fact finding inquiry by questioning witnesses in certain circumstances. Adversarial rules on the admiss ibility of evidence may also allow the judge to act more like an enquirer than an arbiter of justice. Possible Advantages of the Inquisitorial Process In inquisitorial systems the judge is involved in the investigation and in the preparation of evidence by the police, and he or she is concerned as to how the various parties will ultimately present their case at trial. It is an inquisitorial judge’s role to lead the questioning of witnesses while prosecution and defence parties are entitled to ask supplementary questions. The influence of the judge in the process has the effect of reducing the level of contest between the two opposing parties, something which is a defining characteristic of the adversarial process. It is submitted that allowing an expert neutral party to lead the examination in chief of witnesses would take a lot of the steam and heat and posturing out of the United Kingdom’s current adversarial system and reduce the risk of intimidation and threa t and the risk that one highly gifted advocate could unfairly tilt the balance of the trial. The quality of evidence should improve as a consequence and there would be less argument between advocates in front of the bench, which often distracts the court and wastes time. A key feature of the French inquisitorial system in criminal justice (and in other countries which operate on similar lines) is the function of the juge dinstruction, who can be conceptualised as the investigating magistrate. The juge dinstruction is a judge given the responsibility for conducting investigations into serious crimes or complicated inquiries. The juge dinstruction is independent from the political power as well as the prosecution and such a figure could prove useful in the English system, which has recently been criticised for allowing miscarriages of justice such as that experienced by the so-called Guildford Four, who were released after fifteen years of imprisonment in 1989 due to concerns ov er the integrity of the original police investigation.[4] An inquisitorial juge dinstruction could offer a useful check and balance in the process of investigation and case building which could prevent pregnable or dubious prosecutions being attempted. Contrary to the prosecution, which is, at the trial stage, supervised by the Minister of Justice in an inquisitorial system, the juge dinstruction, as a judge, is independent which insulates him or her from political pressures and corruption to some extent, such as those complained of in the English adversarial system in other notorious cases of miscarriage of justice such as that of the celebrated Birmingham Six.[5] An inquisitorial judge examines suspects and witnesses, and is empowered to order searches or other investigations. The raison d’à ¯Ã†â€™Ã‚ ªtre of the juge dinstruction is the finding of the truth, not the prosecution of a particular person. As such his duty is to look both for incriminatory and exculpatory evidence (à   charge et à   dà ©charge). Both the prosecution and the defence may request the judge to take actions, and the judges decisions can be appealed before a Court of Appeal.[6] Another strength of the inquisitorial system over the adversarial system is that as a consequence of the judicial enquiry and the possibility for judicial proceedings to be cancelled on evidential or procedural grounds during the initial phase, cases in which procedure is suspect or the evidence is weak tend not to proceed to the stage of trial. This eliminates the adversarial practice of plea bargaining (which is popular, for example, in the United States) in strong cases for the prosecution, which are tried in court.[7] Supporters of the adversarial system of criminal justice often argue that the system is fairer than the inquisitional style, due to the fact that it offers less opportunity for state bias against the defendant. However, this is hard to accept given that in adversarial pro secutions are run exclusively by the state. In addition, proponents of adversarial procedure contend that the inquisitorial court systems are overly institutionalised and distant from the typical citizen, given that common law lawyers have a better chance of establishing the truth in forensic environment of the courtroom. It could be argued that common law lawyers are equipped, after the discovery stage, to understand the scope and tenor of consensus and disagreement on the issues at the point of trial in similar fashion to investigative judges in the inquisitorial system. It has also been argued that a trial by a jury of ones peers is likely to be more impartial than a state salaried inquisitor and a panel of his peers. A move away from such a system would cause a seismic shift in many jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the Constitution enshrines the right to a trial by a jury of peers who are themselves common citizens. Naturally, those in favour of a system o f inquisitorial justice contradict these observations, pointing out that most cases in adversarial systems are in practice resolved by plea bargain and settlement. Most criminal cases in adversarial systems do not reach trial and this can lead to great injustice when the defendant is represented by an overworked or poorly skilled advocate, which is likely to be the case where the defendant cannot afford to pay for the best representation. Moreover, supporters of inquisitorial systems contend that the plea bargain system introduces perversity and idiosyncrasy into adversarial systems, because it prompts the prosecution to bring excessive charges and encourages the defendant to plead guilty to crimes of which they are not guilty. Moreover, those in favour of inquisitorial systems also submit that the power of the judge is controlled by the use of lay assessors and that there is no reason why an experienced panel of judges should necessarily be more susceptible to bias than a jury. In some countries that use an inquisitorial system jury trials are available for some categories of crime but are unpopular given the common belief that any defendant who requests a trial by jury has a case that is so tenuous that they would rather risk pleading their case before lay strangers than experienced and professional judges. Hence, jurors in those countries are very unsympathetic toward defendants.[8] One of the enduring criticisms of the adversarial system is that the ability of a party to obtain an acquittal or less serious conviction may depend more upon the quality of their lawyers than on the salient facts of the case. This gives rise to a fear that adversarial justice offers a better system for rich defendants than poor ones. A cheaper and less able lawyer may fail to influence a jury as to reality of a case, as easily as a highly effective and highly expensive advocate. This perception has been highlighted in high profile cases such as that of OJ Simpson[9] an d Michael Jackson[10] in the United States, where the respective defendants were able to afford to pay for the very finest lawyers that money can buy, and as a consequence avoid prosecution for serious crimes on facts that expert observers have deemed compelling enough to convict â€Å"ordinary† defendants. It can be argued that adversarial systems unfairly boil down to who has the best lawyers and that it is in the interests of lawyers to add complexity and difficulty to an already fraught situation. A quote from famous actor Danny Devito from the 1991 film Other Peoples Money[11] may seem out of place in a paper of this nature but it offers a compelling indictment of the adversarial system, which provided the backdrop for the movie. He said: â€Å"lawyers are like nuclear weapons, you have yours, I have mine, and when we use them they %^%$ everything up.† Another important difference between the inquisitional system and the adversarial system is highlighted when a defendant confesses to a crime. In an adversary system the case proceeds to sentencing. In contrast, in an inquisitional system of criminal justice, a defendant’s confession is just one more fact to be entered into evidence, and such an admission does not allow the prosecution to avoid the responsibility to present a full and compelling case. It is submitted by this commentator that this reduces the risk of false confessions, which are more common than one might think, leading to wrongful convictions. Other differences lie in the rules of evidence applicable in each of the major systems of criminal justice. In recognition of the fact that the adversarial system presumes that evidence must be presented to laymen rather than to professional judges, the rules of evidence are significantly more exacting than in inquisitorial courts. Important evidence such as persuasive or high quality hearsay, may therefore be excluded in the adversarial system and thus effect the outc ome of a trial. Concluding Comments The above commentary has considered key aspects of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems and it is argued that on balance, the inquisitorial system offers a better and more effective mode of governance for criminal justice than the adversarial system currently employed in the United Kingdom and other common law jurisdictions. It is contended that such a reform would also represent a modernisation of the existing system and create a new legal order more in keeping with other twenty first century institutions and practices. Historians can trace the adversarial system of justice right back to the medieval practice of trial by combat, in which certain litigants, in particular women, were allowed a champion to represent them. Need it be said that this is hardly an effective way to determine guilt or innocence, and the ability of a defendant to call upon a mighty champion, or in modern terms, a charismatic, brilliant and expensive lawyer, s hould not be allowed to sway the determination and due process of justice. In 1993 a Royal Commission considered the debate as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of both systems and found that, on balance, England and Wales should resist the move to an inquisitorial system.[12] On the other hand, more recent British Civil Justice reforms initiated by Lord Woolf (ie. the Civil Procedure Rules otherwise known as ‘CPR’) have been prefaced by a case management system under the control of the presiding judge rather than by the opposing lawyers in the case. It is submitted that case management systems tip-toeing closer to the inquisitorial model are also being implemented in the United States of America. Consequently, although the 1993 Royal Commission decided that England and Wales should retain the adversarial system, it seems that inquisitorial practices are slowly creeping into British justice. If these prove successful it is likely that pressure will begin to build for more comprehensive adoption of the inquisitorial model, especially if high profile instances highlighting the weaknesses of the adversarial system continue to occur, and in particular if the general public concern relating to the undue influence of star lawyers who are out of reach of most of the population persists. Jury service is unpopular among the general public and can prove highly disruptive where cases run on from days into weeks. Its removal or reduction may well prove another temptation for public opinion if a proposal to move to an inquisitorial system were to be adopted by the manifesto of one of the major parties and tested at a general election. Although it is admitted that the electorate typically profess to harbour considerable pride in the present adversarial system, some of the arguments and analysis set out in this paper might well persuade a sufficient majority to support such a reform. In closing it is submitted that, although the adversarial sy stem is time honoured and has generally served this country and its overarching framework of justice well, a popular and convincing case could be made out for the adoption of an inquisitorial process on a number of substantive and procedural grounds. THE END WORD COUNT: 2518 (excluding footnotes) BIBLIOGRAPHY Hale et al, Criminology, (2005) Oxford University Press Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, (2003) Willan Publishing Harding, C., Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, (1995) Clarendon Press BBC News Archive: https://news.bbc.co.uk/ (various documents) Wikipedia Online Encyclopaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six Hodgson, J. (2005) Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure: Deriving Normative Consequences for the Trial, in A. Duff et al, (eds) The Trial on Trial Vol 2: Calling to Account and Judgment Oxford: Hart Publishing. 1 Footnotes [1] For an insightful analysis see: Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, (2003) Willan Publishing. [2] See for comment: Hale et al, Criminology, (2005) Oxford University Press. [3] See: Harding, C., Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, (1995) Clarendon Press. [4] See for comment: https://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stm. [5] See for full description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six; and for contemporary comment see: https://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm. [6] It should be noted that juges dinstructions are appointed only for the most serious crimes (such as murder and rape), and for less serious crimes where such entail a certain level of complexity (such as embezzlement, misuse of public funds, corruption). [7] See for general comment: Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, (2003) Willan Publishing. [8] A good example is the Japanese sys tem. [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O._J._Simpson. [10] https://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.trial/. [11] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102609/. [12] See for comment: Hodgson, J. (2005) Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure: Deriving Normative Consequences for the Trial, in A. Duff et al, (eds) The Trial on Trial Vol 2: Calling to Account and Judgment Oxford: Hart Publishing.