![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/magazine/she-was-convicted-of-killing-her-mother-prosecutors-withheld-the-evidence-that-would-have-freed-her.html?smid=fb-share
In addition to the specific case, the article has a history of prosecutors withholding evidence and the laws related to that. It's been very bad, but recently, some prosecutors have been supporting broad disclosure, a requirement that *all* the evidence be shared.
I'm not convinced that this will be enough, though it seems like a good idea.
I think great deal of the problem is the adversarial approach to trials. It seems unlikely that Americans will give up the prosecutor vs. defense system, so I propose adding a third person to trials who's not allied with either side-- their job is to repeatedly address the question of whether the arguments make sense.
Zande Myrande wrote up a beginning of a trial which includes a third advocate-- this may make the idea clearer.
In addition to the specific case, the article has a history of prosecutors withholding evidence and the laws related to that. It's been very bad, but recently, some prosecutors have been supporting broad disclosure, a requirement that *all* the evidence be shared.
I'm not convinced that this will be enough, though it seems like a good idea.
I think great deal of the problem is the adversarial approach to trials. It seems unlikely that Americans will give up the prosecutor vs. defense system, so I propose adding a third person to trials who's not allied with either side-- their job is to repeatedly address the question of whether the arguments make sense.
Zande Myrande wrote up a beginning of a trial which includes a third advocate-- this may make the idea clearer.
