Due Process is a Sham

[Traditio]

Consider the following:

Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have access to all of the same evidence. They know in advance pretty much how the trial will turn out, at least, insofar as the evidence being presented goes. And yet, no matter how many trials we witness, a wonder, a veritable "miracle" will happen:

Even though both parties have access to the exact same evidence, the prosecuting attorney will always conclude A, and the defense attorney will always conclude not A.

They have the same evidence, and yet, they will always make opposite conclusions? Without fail? Without exception? How can this possibly be?

Because that's what they're being paid to do. Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice. :nono:

 

[drbrumley]

Consider the following:

Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have access to all of the same evidence. They know in advance pretty much how the trial will turn out, at least, insofar as the evidence being presented goes. And yet, no matter how many trials we witness, a wonder, a veritable "miracle" will happen:

Even though both parties have access to the exact same evidence, the prosecuting attorney will always conclude A, and the defense attorney will always conclude not A.

They have the same evidence, and yet, they will always make opposite conclusions? Without fail? Without exception? How can this possibly be?

Because that's what they're being paid to do. Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice. :nono:

Time to lay off the drugs Trad...

 

[Traditio]

Time to lay off the drugs Trad...

At the moment, I'm only high on caffeine.

 

[Alate_One]

Well, it's not just what they're paid, it's each individual's JOB. Each is an advocate for the position of their client. It's the job of the jury (or judge) to look at the two positions and *hopefully* fairly decide which is the more reasonable position. It's not a bad system in principle, the problem is it canbe swayed by biases of judge and jury and the respective skills of both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Studies have shown that poor individuals with court appointed attorneys tend to receive more convictions than those people able to hire their own attorneys.

 

[Nick M]

It is a court of law, not a court of justice.

 

[resodko]

Consider the following:

Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have access to all of the same evidence. They know in advance pretty much how the trial will turn out, at least, insofar as the evidence being presented goes. And yet, no matter how many trials we witness, a wonder, a veritable "miracle" will happen:

Even though both parties have access to the exact same evidence, the prosecuting attorney will always conclude A, and the defense attorney will always conclude not A.

They have the same evidence, and yet, they will always make opposite conclusions? Without fail? Without exception? How can this possibly be?

Because that's what they're being paid to do. Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice. :nono:

i've made the point before that the adversarial legal system in america is inherently immoral because it requires one side to argue against truth

iow, our legal system is built on the requirement of lying

 

[resodko]

It is a court of law, not a court of justice.

and the only people who benefit from it are lawyers, who are, of course, evil manipulative scumbags at their core

 

[Alate_One]

i've made the point before that the adversarial legal system in america is inherently immoral because it requires one side to argue against truth

iow, our legal system is built on the requirement of lying

Is it always obvious what the truth is?

 

[resodko]

Is it always obvious what the truth is?

nope - that's why God gave us guidelines for a just system of justice

 

[Caledvwlch]

Consider the following:

Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have access to all of the same evidence. They know in advance pretty much how the trial will turn out, at least, insofar as the evidence being presented goes. And yet, no matter how many trials we witness, a wonder, a veritable "miracle" will happen:

Even though both parties have access to the exact same evidence, the prosecuting attorney will always conclude A, and the defense attorney will always conclude not A.

They have the same evidence, and yet, they will always make opposite conclusions? Without fail? Without exception? How can this possibly be?

Because that's what they're being paid to do. Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice. :nono:

How often do you do this thread?

 

[Rusha]

Is it always obvious what the truth is?

Not necessarily ... which is why there is a defense. It's also important to know *why* a crime is committed so that the person being charged is given an appropriate sentence.

 

[OCTOBER23]

PUT YOUR TRUST NOT IN MAN.

 

[fool]

Consider the following:

Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have access to all of the same evidence. They know in advance pretty much how the trial will turn out, at least, insofar as the evidence being presented goes. And yet, no matter how many trials we witness, a wonder, a veritable "miracle" will happen:

Even though both parties have access to the exact same evidence, the prosecuting attorney will always conclude A, and the defense attorney will always conclude not A.

They have the same evidence, and yet, they will always make opposite conclusions? Without fail? Without exception? How can this possibly be?

Because that's what they're being paid to do. Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice. :nono:

Here's your mistake, they don't come to opposite conclusions, they argue opposite sides, different animal.

Go watch Twelve Angry Men, or it's modern adaptation My Cousin Vinny.

 

[TomO]

Go watch Twelve Angry Men, or it's modern adaptation My Cousin Vinny.

:chuckle:

 

[resodko]

Here's your mistake, they don't come to opposite conclusions, they argue opposite sides, different animal.

if one side is true and one is false, one of them is arguing for the side of dishonesty

 

[fool]

if one side is true and one is false, one of them is arguing for the side of dishonesty

But the lawyers weren't there so they don't know.

 

[Traditio]

i've made the point before that the adversarial legal system in america is inherently immoral because it requires one side to argue against truth

iow, our legal system is built on the requirement of lying

I'm not sure that I want to go that far, but I do think that your basic idea is correct. Presumably, both the defending and prosecuting attornies, given their education, have a good idea of what constitutes good and bad legal evidence.

In principle, given the evidence, both of them should come to the same conclusion. Either the defendent, based on the evidence, is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

So one of these attorneys either is:

1. Incompetent (he's drawing bad conclusions based on the evidence).
2. As you say, lying. He knows where the evidence actually leads, and he's arguing the exact opposite.

There's something seriously wrong about this.

Again, this is why I think that the Judge Dredd system is much better.

 

[Traditio]

But the lawyers weren't there so they don't know.

No, but they both have the same evidence at hand, and both of them should be able to tell what the evidence actually indicates.

Do we generally see this in other cases? Two (good, qualified) doctors have the same evidence, but they consistently make opposite diagnoses? Two (good, qualified) scientists have the same evidence, but they consistently claim that the evidence supports two opposite theories?

 

[Traditio]

and the only people who benefit from it are lawyers, who are, of course, evil manipulative scumbags at their core

And guilty persons who don't want to pay their just due. Let us not forget them.

 

[Traditio]

How often do you do this thread?

I've treated this topic before on another thread, but I don't think that I've dealt with it from this angle. :idunno: