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

It's not, though! The defense isn't a watchdog of procedure, the defense is an advocate for the defendant & an opponent of the prosecution!

Show Post

Not well suited in what way? In that we shouldn't presume innocence and make the government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Or are you saying we should have a totally different mechanism of justice for certain crimes? (this isn't flippant - I genuinely am curious about your position)

Show Post

And I'm kind of annoyed people act like this imo extremely inoffensive observation - that lawyers have embraced an ethical code built on their specific needs within an adversarial system - is me somehow Coming For Defense Attorneys as opposed to "yeah, shit sucks, don't it?"

Show Post