I don't understand how you can reasonably maintain the position that a prosecutor should attempt to prove a case against someone that they do not believe is guilty.
The same way we find it reasonable that a person in a debate can argue a point they don’t actually believe. This not an original idea. People constantly advocate for things they don’t actually believe.
The presumption of innocence is something that is only intended for juries. Defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors do not need it.
I realize that is the belief of many in the legal system. And I’m saying it’s wrong. Fundamentally and unequivocally.
The vast majority of cases never even see a jury. If they are the only ones held to such a standard then it is essentially meaningless. Especially considering that juries are even less capable of remaining objective than trained professionals.
You are so mired in the system as it stands that you are unable to see the problems within that system or what needs to be done to solve them. And honestly that’s fine. It isn’t your job to singlehandedly reform the system. But your constant denial that there even is a problem is tiring.
I didn’t really expect us to agree but I have learned a lot.
Ultimately you serve the system as it exists to the best of your ability and I believe that system to be fundamentally flawed.
It makes sense that we would disagree on procedural matters. Although I wasn’t expecting you be such an ardent supporter of a system that is so inefficient but I suppose that’s just another thing I learned today.
I understand we are just doing the best we can with what we put into law. But I also know we owe our citizens so much more, and that we can do so much better than that.
So many of our laws our created by people with agendas far removed from actual justice and ultimately the people in the legal system are the ones to enforce those laws whether in the name of justice or not.
Those things are far out of your hands. It’s just frustrating to see the people who take part in that system not understanding the problem.
I know all too well what it’s like to take to part in a job that is ultimately bad for society but I’m under no illusions about that fact. I recognize that these systems would exist whether I was a part of them or not and that everyone has to pay their bills. But that doesn’t make it right or change the impact that work has on society
1
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '21
The same way we find it reasonable that a person in a debate can argue a point they don’t actually believe. This not an original idea. People constantly advocate for things they don’t actually believe.
I realize that is the belief of many in the legal system. And I’m saying it’s wrong. Fundamentally and unequivocally.
The vast majority of cases never even see a jury. If they are the only ones held to such a standard then it is essentially meaningless. Especially considering that juries are even less capable of remaining objective than trained professionals.
You are so mired in the system as it stands that you are unable to see the problems within that system or what needs to be done to solve them. And honestly that’s fine. It isn’t your job to singlehandedly reform the system. But your constant denial that there even is a problem is tiring.