3 ms·
See, I'm being absolutely cynical and tongue-in-cheek here, but my understanding about the modern law is that lawyers aren't fighting for the "truth" or "common
by 1_player 8y ago
See, I'm being absolutely cynical and tongue-in-cheek here, but my understanding about the modern law is that lawyers aren't fighting for the "truth" or "common good" nor they are in the "righting wrongs" business.
Their only job is doing whatever the client wants done. A _good lawyer_ wins a case even when it's total bollocks. The fact that it is bollocks is not a concern at any level.
https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s
- rcxdude 8y agoThis is how adversarial justice systems are supposed to operate. The idea being that you get lawyers advocating in the best possible way for either side, so the argument is 'fair'. This is in comparison to an inquisitorial system, where one party is charged with investigating the case and exposing the 'truth'. This is more prone to bias and ability on that one party but it does generally mean that the level of resources each side has matters less.
- 1_player 8y agoMakes sense, I'm not very informed on justice systems. What concerns me is, with such a system, when A wins a case against B, we (the vast populace) deduce that A was in the right / B was wrong. In many cases, if A wins a case, it's just because they lied better than B. It does not prove anything more than that.
- sorokod 8y agoIts a modern version of trial by combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat). As always ,those who can buy a better combatant - win.