Are Prosecutors all evil?

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're jaded but don't have a bird's eye view of it.

The system assumes adverse positions will show contrasts so that a disinterested observer will see the truth. It's better than the French system, and does okay most of the time. Better advocacy usually makes a small difference on the fringes or in maximizing how much or how little somebody gets.

Just as philosophers see different angles, so do attorneys. There is corruption in the system, but usually not how outsiders view it. Your jaded view just sounds like something an observant outsider makes and is really not borne out empiracally.

What is your beef with the French system? I spent a good portion of last summer learning about it and observing it, and I'd like to hear what you think of it from your insiders perspective.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

What is your beef with the French system? I spent a good portion of last summer learning about it and observing it, and I'd like to hear what you think of it from your insiders perspective.

Compare the difference of inductive versus deductive reasoning, an absence of common law growth, the fact that the least qualified are judges, and that the judge is in fact part of the prosecutorial wing.

It's a screwed up system. I want no part of it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

If what you say is true then why are so many lawyers blatantly dishonest anyway?

And you know this becasue . . . you saw it on TV? Or perhaps becasue you disagree with what they say, much like you disagree with much of what is said here? Are all those you disagree with liars? Is this just more of you calling them like you see them?

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Compare the difference of inductive versus deductive reasoning, an absence of common law growth, the fact that the least qualified are judges, and that the judge is in fact part of the prosecutorial wing.

It's a screwed up system. I want no part of it.

Fair enough. We got to watch a bunch of trials at the Palais de Justice and one in Siena, Italy. Very interesting stuff. The best part is what the avocats where under their robes, which is usually shorts and t-shirts. Would have been even more interesting if we could have understood more than about 20% of what was being said.

I guess what I found interesting is that all of the American students had a preference for our system, mostly because of the reasons that you elucidated. But our professor pointed out that our system is less attractive to the French or Italians because it is less interested in establishing truth, which they is the utmost goal of the European system. At least that is their view. We take a different approach to get to the truth, but it is one that is more difficult to explain to the public.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Fair enough. We got to watch a bunch of trials at the Palais de Justice and one in Siena, Italy. Very interesting stuff. The best part is what the avocats where under their robes, which is usually shorts and t-shirts. Would have been even more interesting if we could have understood more than about 20% of what was being said.

I guess what I found interesting is that all of the American students had a preference for our system, mostly because of the reasons that you elucidated. But our professor pointed out that our system is less attractive to the French or Italians because it is less interested in establishing truth, which they is the utmost goal of the European system. At least that is their view. We take a different approach to get to the truth, but it is one that is more difficult to explain to the public.

John Stuart Mill said something to the effect "let truth and error grapple" and that defines our approach.

However, if a judge, who is less qualified, gets a bias, what's to cause that judge to look at other things?

The Civil Law tradition is too pinholey for me. I can't find it here in the law. No room for equity.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I agree. Prosecutors will lie, cheat, exagerate, ignore the evidence, falsify evidence, mislead, manipulate, and anything else to win their cases. So will the defense attorneys. The poor judges are left to sift through the bullshit.

Santos' rose colored view of "poor judges" domonstrates his naivete.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

If what you say is true then why are so many lawyers blatantly dishonest anyway?

What is your evidence that they are?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

What is your evidence that they are?

Are you gonna deny that lawyers aren't the best Bullyewt salesmen in the world?

They have a bullyewt answer for EVERYTHING.

All you gotta do is read this board....obviously.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Are you gonna deny that lawyers aren't the best Bullyewt salesmen in the world?

They have a bullyewt answer for EVERYTHING.

All you gotta do is read this board....obviously.

Lawyers are taught to think, to advocate a point of view and to work people through the labyrinth of laws, regulations and rules.

And show me one job, profession or any position of value where presentation is completely irrelevant.

But yes I deny that lawyers are any more dishonest that the average citizen. If anything, they are more honest because credibility matters.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Lawyers are taught to think, to advocate a point of view and to work people through the labyrinth of laws, regulations and rules.

And show me one job, profession or any position of value where presentation is completely irrelevant.

But yes I deny that lawyers are any more dishonest that the average citizen. If anything, they aer more honest because creditbility matters.

like I said...a bullyewt answer for everything. You can word the same B.S. a million different ways

You just made my point for me without me having to say another word.