The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence).
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
I am not convinced that is true but let’s say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.
You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn’t be claiming that bringing that into the principal’s office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.
You say that as if I want to do it for shits and giggles.
Yes, I would love for that to be unnecessary. For people to just look at a person and be able to accurately tell if they are guilty or not. That is not the world we live in.
So in absence of that, I want something to prevent innocent people being punished (to a reasonable degree). Nothing better than a (watered down) trial was invented as far as I know.
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
I am not convinced that is true but let’s say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.
You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn’t be claiming that bringing that into the principal’s office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.
You say that as if I want to do it for shits and giggles.
Yes, I would love for that to be unnecessary. For people to just look at a person and be able to accurately tell if they are guilty or not. That is not the world we live in.
So in absence of that, I want something to prevent innocent people being punished (to a reasonable degree). Nothing better than a (watered down) trial was invented as far as I know.