4 ms·
No, this is a distinct argument. It's that this system was designed to function best when everyone does their jobs. Attorneys in the US are supposed to be zealo
by apendleton 9y ago
No, this is a distinct argument. It's that this system was designed to function best when everyone does their jobs. Attorneys in the US are supposed to be zealous advocates. The judge and jury don't know going in whether the person did it or not, but the hope is that if the prosecutor fights their hardest (even if the accused is innocent) and the defense attorney fights their hardest (even if their client is guilty) that hopefully ultimately the one that comes out ahead will be the one that's right. It's not a perfect system, but this is how it's meant to work.
- taeric 9y agoThat is the exact same argument. Just instead of "lawyer" pick "any government job." And be clear that was never the case. Prosecutorial discretion is and has almost always been the case. I could just as easily claim that attorneys in the US are supposed to be about upholding the spirit, as much as the letter, of the law.
- jacalata 9y agoIt's the same argument. Someone created a system and I'm just doing my assigned part to keep it going without having to decide if it's a good system or not == just following orders.
- jessaustin 9y agoThe system wasn't "designed" in any such manner. The system is the sum of myriad accretions of laws and precedent over the course of centuries. This idea that there is a design with a purpose for which anything is meant reminds us of the "intelligent design" take on biological evolution. In this case, however, the history is clearly written in records recorded in English at the time that each such accretion took place, rather than locked up in obscure geologic formations.