And I mean, getting pushed into a 400 foot hole is just a punishment. What's the process by which we get there? Who gets to decide, and how is it not government by lynch mob (who were also fully convinced of their moral righteousness AND factual correctness)

Show Post

This is the thing I'm calling out here: the idea that the defense is there to keep the prosecution honest, as opposed to "the defense is there to get the best ethically possible outcome for their client, regardless of their guilt, evidence, character or the state's efforts."

Show Post

They are not there to make sure the prosecutor does a good case. They are there to protect the interests of the client. That *as a result* is assumed to result in opposition strong enough that the prosecutor is forced to actually bring a good case, but it doesn't mean a good case never fails

Show Post

The procedure is adversarial because it assumes if everyone pursues their role to the best of their ability something close to justice will occur as a result of the dynamic of the courtroom. That's different from proclaiming the defense is there as some sort of rigor proof for the prosecutor.

Show Post

The essential problem that I am having, and perhaps it is a character flaw, is many arguments against OP go basically "well everyone deserves to be tried fairly" but that's not the ROLE of the defense. The defense's role, in its simplest form, is DEFENSE, not rigor.

Show Post