Quote:
Originally Posted by TChan
That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. Justice, in theory, demands pursuit of the truth. But the actual justice system is two opponents or teams playing against one another. If you're trying to win a game, you would want the best coach, the best players, the best game plan. As you point out, that's what the prosecution had.
The point is that it's unfortunate that the best method we've figured out of coming to the truth is this antagonistic model where both sides simply plays the "game" as best as they can. Adnan didn't have a great coach or a star quarterback (or maybe he did have a great quarterback who happened to have a bad game), and as a result he may well spend the rest of his life in prison. And he's far from the only one, just the most public.
I don't know much about it, but fwiw France uses an 'inquisitorial' system where the judge drives the calling of witnesses and the like:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inqui..._system#France. It seems like it's only one stage of a process that also involves the adversarial system if the judge decides there's sufficient evidence. In the UK coroners' inquests (used to establish legal cause of death) follow a similar system, I think.
It's hard to imagine a system where we have people designed to prosecute cases who aren't incentivised to, err, get convictions, so I don't know how you solve the problem.