The supreme court is not final because it is infallible, it is rather infallible because it is final
Chukwudifu Oputa, S.A.N.
Image source: pixabay
The above statement captures the imperfection inherent in the legal system as the basic justice system for humans.
The Legal system, howbeit imperfect , is still an ingenious system, the best humanity can come up with, at least until we as a species evolve into omniscience mutants that can know facts by just staring into a crystal ball.
A lawyer once shared a story on one of the social media of how he was able to exploit the technicalities of a case to let an alleged murderer walk free. As expected, people stormed his wall and started raining thunders of abuses and brimstones of curses on him.
But fact is, Dude was just doing his job! Like they say, hate the game not the player. He didn't make the system, he was just "unfortunate" to be caught up in its webs. Yes, the legal practice is anything but perfect. But let's face it, it is the best justice system humanity can afford at present.
We are not omniscience, neither are we omnipresence. So there's no way we could wave the wand of clairvoyance or stare into a crystal ball and know the absolute truth. So this is how it works, you argue your case and the judge passes a judgement in the light of the evidence.
Image source: pixabay
Whether the judge's ruling mirrors true justice or not, the Judge is not to blame, cos he may not even know what is the truth. His obligation is to satisfy his conscience and make an unbiased and fair ruling in the light of the facts presented to him.
Same goes for the Attorney, he has the obligation to give his client a fair representation because his client, whether guilty or not,has a right to a fair representation. Fact is even if the client confesses to the crime, he is protected by the attorney-client privilege, and it would be unethical for the attorney to disclose the same, or even be biased into giving him an unfair representation.
So the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. If anything, he is the one who should feel bad that he didn't work hard enough to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused was guilty. Because that was his sole duty. It is a beautiful system really, one riddled with flaws like any other human system, mirroring the imperfection of the sapiens, but beautiful nonetheless.
And the occupational hazards? We all have ours.
All those who are always quick to criticise lawyers, calling them liars, should get down from their moral high horses and face reality. I'm sure most of such people, even when not bound by obligation or the ethics of their professions still go around bribing and doing all sorts of rubbish including cheating. Yet they are always quick to throw stones.