judicial system?

Question

Do you think that it would be a better system leading to true justice if defence and prosecuting attorney were elimanated in the judicial sysetm. In their place ther could be something like a unbiased fact finding panel to collect evidence and then presented to a jury. We have many example of people being excuted because of poor defence attorneys or by crooket proscetors. And also example of guilty people going free (O.J. Simpson ) because of schrewed defence attorneys.

Answer 1

Once prosecutors get something in their head they stick with it even if it isn't true. Even after evidence is presented showing otherwise they are just too high and mighty to accept that they were wrong. For this reason alone they should be eliminated, and burned at the stake, and tortured, and their dead body mutilated. Can you tell I have had a problem with one before?

Answer 2

No. Attorneys are there to study laws and ensure that the parties involved get their legal representation. Cops are there to collect evidence. The two are not the same thing, and asking an "unbiased fact panel" to perform both actions is absurd.

We have SOME examples of people being executed because of poor defense attorneys, though I'd question that it was only the fault of lawyers. Same with the guilty people going free - sometimes, the case just gets twisted with other issues, like in the OJ case. In either case, there's plenty of other factors involved than just "oh, those lawyers are either too good at their job or else they're lazy".

While we all love to bash lawyers, eliminating them won't do anyone any good. Someone has to know the laws inside and out. Fact-finding panels would undoubtedly end up as corrupt as anything, and be less qualified on all counts for everything they do.

Face it - lawyers are a pain in the ***, but it's ultimately the jury that convicts.

Answer 3

That is another approach. And one that might work well.

The current system is based on the belief (somewhat arbitrary in practice) that two equally matched opponents, both zealously advocating their point of view, will allow the most information to be uncovered and thus best lead to the truth. It is based on the assumption that someone neutral does not have the incentive to push in one direction or another, and thus is likely to do only a casual or partial job at uncovering the facts.

That perspective is not unreasonable. Aside from a sense of personal duty and integrity, what would motivate such a neutral fact-seeker in their job? Not their success ration, because there is no winner or loser from their perspective. Even judges, who are supposed to be neutral, often campaign for re-election on their sentencing record.

The problem with your model is that it only works well in an ideal world, where people are more concerned about the truth than with imposing punishment. Without a zealous advocate for the defense, it's too easy for the system to pick some innocent person as a scapegoat just to get closure. Or pick a known criminal, just so they get locked away, regardless of whether they committed this particular crime or not. That already happens far too often under the current system.

So, while the pure search for truth and justice is an ideal, it is one that we as a society are not ready for. Not until we let of of fear and hatred and anger, and reach a place as a society where the truth of a situation is the most important consideration. We're not there yet.

Answer 4

What makes you think that this "unbiased fact-finding committee" would be any less biased than a professional prosecutor? The U.S. system of justice is, by design, adversarial; prosecutors and defense attorneys must be allowed equally enthusiastic strategies and methods to get criminal defendants convicted or acquitted, respectively. It's only when prosecutors are so intent on a conviction that they falsify evidence of guilt, or withhold exculpatory evidence or witnesses, that the interests of justice are not served. In such cases, there exist mechanisms for redress of a convicted defendant's grievances, usually at the appeals level of state and federal courts.

The real problem is that many judges, especially those appointed by Republicans, come from the ranks of prosecutors, who tend to biased against criminal defendants. Then prosecutors (who may be thoroughly honest and ethical) are given unfair leeway, all but guaranteeing a conviction, unless the defense attorney is exceptionally sharp, with the great preponderance of evidence and testimony on his side.

Answer 5

I am not sure about doing away with the attorneys. I do think that all and I mean ALL evidence should be admissible. Right now you can't bring up past convictions even if the person is habitual. While the defense can bring up everything they can dig up or manufacture about the witnesses. I do believe it has to be changed. Considering that the judges and attorneys own the system we would be hard pressed to get that accomplished.

Answer 6

I dont think what you suggest might work in the best interests of everyone. You have to give the plaintiff and the defendents their chances (represented by lawyers) to express their point of view and evidences as they like. This way you wont have a biased trend inside the court room.

Answer 7

Ever looked in a local courtroom?
there ain't no rich people there.
get rid of all attorneys, simplify the law
and go from there.
we are individuals and all is based on individual merit
and reasoning.
we are not the same and never, ever will be.

Answer 8

HEY THAT"S THE SYSTEM IF YOU CAN CHANGE IT FAIR& JUST OK BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JURY?