The Pros And Cons Of The Legal System

1294 Words 6 Pages
Throughout the years people have claimed and argued their position towards a big question. Although the simple truth thesis states that big questions admit simple, obvious, and undisputable answers this is not true. Big questions never admit straightforward and unquestionable answers. A big question can be anything from What is Life? to Is capital punishment wrong? yet, I will focus on Does the adversarial process harm plaintiffs and Defendants?. I will argue that the legal system does harm plaintiffs and defendants since, it has failed to protect and enforce the rights of individuals. Innocent people are going to prison or in other cases guilty individuals are not going to jail. The legal system also harms individuals, as the process …show more content…
They will also talk about how the legal system protects more people as the process itself and the laws are made to enforce justice and not cause harm. The opposing position will claim how the number of cases that served justice through the adversarial system outweighs the cases where the adversarial system harmed the people facing it. Yet, one can’t undermine the fact that the legal system has harmed some individuals who have faced the trial process. If the legal system was built to protect the rights of “all” individuals then the process should not harm anyone, but it does harm some. It has harmed Michael Morton, Mr. Bright and many other people that we can’t forget about. Each time the adversarial process wrongfully convicts an innocent individual their family, freedom, job, and life is at stake since they lose quality time because they are incarcerated. For example, Michael Morton didn’t only lose his freedom but he lost the opportunity to see his young son grow and see his wife get buried. Some people fail to see the likelihood of the unlikely--that unlikely things like the legal system harming people can be very likely to …show more content…
Since its aim is to protect its citizens by providing them with a fair trial. However, citizens with limited resources are suffering the consequences of the adversarial process because the procedure tends to favor those who are wealthy. I concur with Malcolm Feeley, a fellow at Yale law school and a professor at New York University, when he refers to the adversarial system as a “sporting event” since it can been seen as a battle between who has the most resources (Feeley 6). Therefore, the law is most helpful when one has access to a qualified attorney since they have the proper education and experience to defend one’s rights to the best of their ability in a trial. The low-income proportion of society has to face the fact that they will be at a disadvantage because being represented by a private experience attorney consists of a high cost. This simple factor causes inequality and harms those low-income individuals who face the adversarial system. Although low-income individuals are granted a public attorney to defend them in criminal cases the experience a public counsel has versus the experience a private counsel has doesn’t

Related Documents