3 ms·

The concept IIUC is both sides have zealous advocacy - both sides leave no stone unturned, no argument unmade (generally speaking) - and through the court proce

The concept IIUC is both sides have zealous advocacy - both sides leave no stone unturned, no argument unmade (generally speaking) - and through the court procedure, that's how a fair trial and the truth come out. How else do you propose doing it? A system - in sometimes highly distrusting, dangerous, and angry situations - that relies on good will seems unlikely to work. Advocacy accepts the adversarial nature of the issue. Countries do have different systems. France relies more on judges somehow, but I don't know if the accused gets an advocate.

p_j_w 3y ago
>The concept IIUC is both sides have zealous advocacy - both sides leave no stone unturned, no argument unmade (generally speaking) - and through the court procedure, that's how a fair trial and the truth come out. It seems to me we land a long way from this idea. In reality what happens, especially for poor people, is the prosecution has, in relation to the defense, a virtually unlimited budget and leaves no stone unturned. The defense is often a public defender without the time or resources to turn many stones at all and is viewed by our population as sleazy because they simply try to do their jobs.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  That is precisely the point that you are replying to.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  How else do you propose doing it?
int_19h 3y ago
Right to counsel is pretty universal. The main difference between adversarial (US) and inquisitorial systems is that in the latter, the judge is not limited to evidence that either side introduces, but can initiate their own investigation to the extent necessary to determine the truth. This makes it much harder for prosecution to pull tricks such as concealing relevant evidence or cherry-picking experts. It also means that even if the defendant doesn't have a good lawyer, the judge can effectively compensate for that.

p_j_w 3y ago

>The concept IIUC is both sides have zealous advocacy - both sides leave no stone unturned, no argument unmade (generally speaking) - and through the court procedure, that's how a fair trial and the truth come out. It seems to me we land a long way from this idea. In reality what happens, especially for poor people, is the prosecution has, in relation to the defense, a virtually unlimited budget and leaves no stone unturned. The defense is often a public defender without the time or resources to turn many stones at all and is viewed by our population as sleazy because they simply try to do their jobs.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
That is precisely the point that you are replying to.
wolverine876 3y ago
How else do you propose doing it?

int_19h 3y ago

Right to counsel is pretty universal. The main difference between adversarial (US) and inquisitorial systems is that in the latter, the judge is not limited to evidence that either side introduces, but can initiate their own investigation to the extent necessary to determine the truth. This makes it much harder for prosecution to pull tricks such as concealing relevant evidence or cherry-picking experts. It also means that even if the defendant doesn't have a good lawyer, the judge can effectively compensate for that.