Shots Across the Bow

I got into an argument with a lawyer over the internet the other day.

(Yeah, I know, but I was bored.)

Anyway, we disagreed on the pros and cons of the adversarial system. Obviously, he supported it, while I found it to be lacking. It seems to me that any system of justice which subordinates finding the truth to winning the case must be a flawed system. In America, you are better off being rich and guilty than poor and innocent.

Shouldn't both attorneys be true officers of the court, and engage in determining the facts of the matter, rather than trying to be the better spin doctor? Granted, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and he is circumscribed by law as to how he provides that truth, and it is the defense attorneys job to ensure that the p[rosecutor makes his case within the bounds of those laws. But defense attorneys are charged to go further than that. They are ethically obligated to do everything in their power to get an aquittal, regardless of the facts. Of course, the same pressure is on the prosecuting attorney. His job is to get a conviction, if at all possible. Now, if all lawyers were operating undr a level playing field, with equal resources, and equal abilities, then this would possibly be a fair system. However, as we all know, the playing fields is not level, and the usual result is not justice, but convenience.