Could we possibly design a system that combines the advantages of both the adversarial and inquisitorial systems, but eliminates their disadvantages?

Or what perhaps about having an inquisitional system for criminal cases and adversarial for civil cases?

This is not a matter of financial cost: my concern is to do everything possible to prevent, at all costs, locking up of innocent people - including the jurors.

I don't think it's fair to the accused to have an inquisitorial system. Imagine being accused and you can't call and cross-examine witnesses. The inquisitorial system might be *intended* to get at the truth better; doesn't mean it does it.

Perhaps the question should be not so much adversarial versus inquisitorial, but monopolistic/guild versus competitive/contractual.

Yuyutsu,

The common law system has adopted some of the features of the inquisitorial system over time. For instance, judges are now expected to help self-represented litigants by explaining the process to them and to an extent helping them present their case. Judges can sometimes also ask questions of witnesses themselves.