Debate Team SyndromeThe team that makes |
|
Many colleges and schools have Debating Teams. For practice the team will divide in to two groups. Someone thinks of an issue, and picks one side to be "for" and one to be "against." The Team member has to argue whichever side is assigned, regardless of whether he or she believes it is true. This is how they practice, and hone their skills.
An extreme example of how a charge could be prosecuted without real merit is in the famous "Trespassing Tenant" charge of Virginia. One team of the Debate could be assigned to argue "Resolved: A tenant is a trespasser" and the other team argues against it. The team that presents the best organized, and most articulate presentation wins. The topic of the debate does not matter.
Many prosecuting attorneys are excellent debaters, and were members of debating teams while in school. Through long hours of practice they have learned to present arguments, regardless of whether or not they believe the side to be true or just.
Prosecuting attorneys get more practice than private attorneys. Every working day they are in the court room presenting arguments. Private attorneys spend more of their time in their offices, and meeting clients. Attorneys charge more for a trial, which may be beyond the finances of the accused.
They also have the advantage of being perceived as on the side of the public. The private attorney may be perceived as representing a special interest. It is no surprised that most prosecuting attorneys win most of their cases. They may achieve promotions based on their success in the court room.
Sometimes they forget that in a Court room, this is not a debating contest. There are real issues involved, having an impact on real people and their lives. Prosecuting people trumped up charges, even misdemeanors, can hurt them financially, emotionally, and have health impacts.
Links