Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

Exactly. The lawyer/author is presenting themselves in the light of seeking the truth. Maybe they actually believe it themself, but it's not a unbiased view.

"... a curious investigator that's trying to maximize their own knowledge of the truth."

Do we actually have anything like this in the 'justice' system? Lawyers are on sides. Police only investigate to prove guilt, not innocence (most of the time). Judges are basically referees. Juries don't get to investigate, only view what the court allows them to (and society in general has a bias against defendants). In my experience, nobody is interested in the truth.

View on HN

I kinda wonder the opposite -- is this "adversarial" approach towards finding the truth, where you've got people assigned to make the best case for different arguments regardless of your personal feelings about it, underutilized in other arenas?

It depends. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seem to be implying that I am against the adversarial system. I am not.

The adversarial system is supposed to produce the truth in a fair fight. In my opinion, the system does not allow for a fair fight. Usually the party with the most money can win. There is a lot bias that exists as well. The people in the system continue to grant themselves more privileges that those not part of the system.

The system even situates itself to where it costs more to defend ones innocence than to just plead and pay a fine. One cannot say that our system provides truth or justice when it allows this to occur.

Not implying anything about you.

I used your comment as a jumping-off point for what I thought was an interesting question about whether this adversarial approach should be extended to other areas.

Ok. I saw the "opposite" part, but didn't see anything that directly argued the opposite of what your comment was saying.

You're focused on the opposite end. Like, you're talking about the problems of the adversarial approach, but I want to focus on where it could be useful and not used today. Not "you have the opposite position as me."

I don't blame you for assuming I was trying to say you're wrong about something -- usually people are trying to argue! I just wanted to shift focus because your comment made me think about something related, yet on the other end.

A number of other developed countries have judges who serve a more inquisitorial role, they're not just neutral referees in the process. Up to you if you think that's better, I'm pretty skeptical of the power of the state so I really don't

It would be nice if juries could ask more questions. Generally they are very limited in the ability to ask questions and the scope of the question.

Even in the more inquisitive role, they aren't actually investigating anything - like finding new info or evidence.

> Do we actually have anything like this in the 'justice' system?

Aren't there things like children's advocates in family court? Review boards at every level who check up on accusations against lawyers/judges/etc.?

I'd venture to guess there are dozens of such entities sprinkled throughout the legal system.

I don't know that children advocates are really seeking justice. They are seeking the best outcome for the kids. They also don't do any real investigating or truth seeking.

"Review boards at every level who check up on accusations against lawyers/judges/etc.?"

Do they? Do they actually do anything? I have experiences with these and they were mind blowing if you come in thinking they're about justice. Don't forget, they keep these secret because they want to protect the system, even if it means sending an innocent person to prison (no requirement to turn over exculpatory evidence even if subpoenaed). The Bar won't even investigate misconduct by prosecutors unless the court has already declared that misconduct occurred.

I would really love to hear about one of the dozen or so boards or whatever that could help me right some past wrongs. Because I've gotten nowhere.

How would such a thing like this exist in practice? Who would watch this watchman?

When your goal is to "discover truth" as Chief Truth Discoverer of the DOJ the only way to audit you is with grander truth discoery.

I agree, if we are only talking about some official position/office.

You could use things like transparency and metrics released to the public. Right now complaints against the judiciary and many other positions in the system are considered so secret that they wont even release them if the contain exculpatory evidence. The reasoning is that the secrecy is necessary to preserve public trust of the system, and the system itself is more important than any individual's rights or justice. We could evaluate the complaints, wrongful convictions, etc to create better procedures and policies to find the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com