What you are talking about, however, just doesn't exist as there is no fairer system (to all sides) to get at the truth. No one has yet invented an infallible machine to detect "truth". It's one of those things that is a great theory, but isn't reality. I'd analogize it to something like communism or socialism. They are great in theory in a college lecture hall, but they never work in the real world.
I said nothing about any infallible system. I said a system that doesn't strive hard enough to reveal the whole truth; and comparing any system to any other system means little to me. I don't care if it's better than anything else. If it isn't as good as it can be, it needs to be made better. In our culture and our society and in looking at the world around us, I don't see how that point can be argued. Fer instance, IMO we have the best health care in the world. So let's just stop introducing new drugs and treatments and devices and say good enough. Right? Of course not.
AND I am not convinced we are light years ahead of everybody else anyway. Our human nature dictates that we think what we have is what we SHOULD have and that it's better than what someone else has. I always discount any form of homerism.
And in that same vein, it serves to point out that communism and socialism is basically what we are talking about. We are talking about a system that is taught in law schools but doesn't really work out to serve the cause of justice as well as intended, or at least as well as it should. Much like communism.
you're not helping yourself trying to convince me, by choosing examples of Joe Shit the Rag Man asking stupid questions. A juror needs to understand what is being presented, and he sometimes has a better chance of that if he asks the question himself rather than having to depend on the answer given to pointed questioning. That pointed questioning is often designed to produce an answer that accomplishes the opposite of what is needed, the revelation of the entire truth. That defendant you're so concerned about depends on the skill of his attorney to overcome such pointed questioning, and I hope you don't try to convince me that attorneys are infallible in that or any other regard. Likewise, on the flip side JUSTICE depends on the same things. And justice doesn't just serve the defendant, it serves ALL of us.
As I said, the judge should be there to help the truth come out and not just to see that the adversaries stay in their lanes. Let jurors ask questions and let the judge decide if the question is reasonable. In your example, one of the most glaring defects in our system is exposed, so TIA for that. We call on the wisdom of 12 people off the street to decide whether a person lives or dies or spends the rest of his life behind bars, yet we can't trust them to have enough sense to understand what's pertinent or prejudicial. THAT is what I'm saying the judge should be doing, to advise of those things while not stifling the need to know and understand.
BTW, I have to assume you haven't been to many NBA games. The seats are full of fans telling Stephen Curry how to improve his play. Your choice of the best is a case in the point I'm making though. You chose Stephen Curry as an example because he is the least reproachable player. If you wanted to reveal the truth, you would have chosen a much lesser one....but you didn't because you wanted to present only what could be least argued against. See?
No offense, but I'm lol'ing a little at your description of the highly trained and fully capable yada yada that exist in a system you tell me can't be infallible. Frankly, you're slipping me a little hogwash there. OF COURSE it can't be infallible, and neither can the actors in it, which is exactly the reason we shouldn't depend fully on them to be so. That's my point, or a good part of it. I'm seeking the truth, and you're giving me the rosy part of the truth you want me to have. while conveniently forgetting to tell me about the thorns.
So let's talk about those extensive rules. A woman has been raped and murdered. A cop illegally enters a home without cause and finds a video of a perp committing the act. It's on tape, open and shut. OOPS, can't allow that evidence, it was illegally obtained. Extensive rules don't impress me. Rules serve their purpose, but my point is that they sometimes serve the purpose wrongly (don't waste time destructing that off-the-cuff example to invalidate the valid point).
Hope that helps answer your questions.
I'm going to let you be the judge. Har har.
nypost.com
