>thats the only way an adversarial system works
Really, it shouldn't be an adversarial system against the law-abiding citizenry.
Really, it shouldn't be an adversarial system against the law-abiding citizenry.
How else do you propose doing it? A system - in sometimes highly distrusting, dangerous, and angry situations - that relies on good will seems unlikely to work. Advocacy accepts the adversarial nature of the issue.
Countries do have different systems. France relies more on judges somehow, but I don't know if the accused gets an advocate.
It seems to me we land a long way from this idea. In reality what happens, especially for poor people, is the prosecution has, in relation to the defense, a virtually unlimited budget and leaves no stone unturned. The defense is often a public defender without the time or resources to turn many stones at all and is viewed by our population as sleazy because they simply try to do their jobs.
While imperfect, adversarial systems are still our best means of establishing the truth. Whether it is Quality Assurance testing in the context of engineering, reproducibility in the context of scientific experiments, or trial courts in the context of law.