People study Law because that’s where the money is. At least that’s the most frequent answer I’ve heard, and I thank them for their honesty.
Although, I always confront them with the same question: Is Law as just as it claims to be? Is the court really a temple for the veneration of Justice, or is this just a theoretical, overly romanticized fantasy?
The truth of the matter is that evidence is what really matters. Clever criminals seem to use this fact to their advantage brilliantly, as they hire the “best” attorneys who are formidably skilled at destroying every trace of incriminating evidence. Where does this leave the innocent man, who, now, will appear to be a complete fool in front of His Excellency, since his accusation does not seem to have any substantial foundation?
The clever man, not accused of being a criminal anymore, happily hops out of the building, leaving the innocent man in ruins.
It is not a beautiful picture I have painted, and I can sit here, ranting and raving about it, but that wouldn’t help. S0 perhaps it would be more productive to ask questions and try to seek their answers.
What if there is simply not enough evidence to prove someone’s innocence? Yes, because being innocent isn’t what matters, proving it is what’s important. In this sense, the court isn’t there to defend someone, au contraire, the person in need of defense must prove to be worthy of it, again, by presenting evidence.
Evidence seems to be the currency in this community of Justice-makers, and like any other currency, it can easily be corrupted.
Witnesses can lie, and they can lie successfully, as long as there appears no evidence to prove otherwise.
Justice, then, can be attached to such clever lies, fat checks on the hands of the attorney, and freedom to those who cause harm to others.
I may hate the idea of this necessity for evidence, but the truth is that our senses have not proven to be so reliable as to judge whether someone is guilty or not. This, however, doesn’t mean that morals should stop at the door. After all, it is people’s lives we’re dealing with, not mere paperwork.
“Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise (vice versa)”, goes the saying. I, always on the con side, disagree. Being should be not be dictated by proof.
Pocket Politics 
Reblogged this on Free Thought Applied.
Thank you 🙂
I appreciate the post and agree that the Criminal Justice is flawed with it’s focus on evidence. The evidence isn’t fully reliable as it is not thoroughly expressed on all sides. Going on further, in some research I have come across it seems that the rule of thumb fits more with the idea, “Guilty until proven innocent”.
“Is the court really a temple for the veneration of Justice, or is this just a theoretical, overly romanticized fantasy?” This is really “the” big question I guess…
And all that honesty that you came across when ever you ask why one goes to law school, it only shows how poor the human mind can be thinking just for itself, when in Law it’s absolutely necessary to think for another human, however, with such a view like yours, is kind of a proof that not everything is lost!
That’s because I believe that the Law should be protected, the Law is unchangeable and is only goal is (or should be) to protect and to serve people and, ultimately, to do Justice for those who can and can not despite what one can be, hence, you do another important question: Why do we, want to proof someone’s inocence if we look for proofs for guiltiness despising the “Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise (vice versa)”?
I guess with all of this talking that the conclusion can only be that: it isn’t the Law that needs to be changed, rather, the people who exercises it needs to be changed!
I want to make this last point as a “safeguard”, I want to emphasize that not all students or professionals of Law think the same way and it’s not necessary that all of them change view, because Laws are made side by side with other Institutions, and with other people besides people in law area as well it corrsponds to a society.
In sum, if one wants to change this view, first think how to change society and then think why!