What does non-adversarial mean to you though? I'm not attached to how we describe the system, but I am attached to people's rights. If it means "without input from the person we're thinking about executing" then I am immovably opposed.

Show Post

I hadn't yet read your view about free will/guilt, etc., so I see how I mischaracterized your opinion there. Sorry for that.

Show Post

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