(no subject)
May. 19th, 2011 11:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kd7sovI've been playing the Ace Attorney video games recently.
I enjoy them, I really do. It's just... I keep wanting to smack the entire legal system involved.
I mean, Always Murder is a forgivable trope. Not an excellent one, but forgivable. But. Phoenix's clients are not so much "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as "guilty until someone else is proven guilty beyond any doubt". Which is really annoying in the last case of the second game; Phoenix is supposed to get a "not guilty" verdict for his client in the space of a single day. He manages to bring up evidence and testimony that point to another person being at the place and time, and his client not being there. But the verdict can't be given because there's no definitive evidence that this other person is the killer. And I'm all, "So? I'm supposed to be a defense attorney. Whether or not this other person actually did it is none of my concern, and nothing to do with my job. My job is to get you to suspect that my client didn't do it."
Then there's the fact that the prosecutors, and occasionally the witnesses, have more power over the trial than the judge does. Yes, the AAverse judge is something of a pushover, but that shouldn't mean the prosecution should be able to say "if this witness you want turns out to not help your case you need to automatically accept a guilty verdict".
I enjoy them, I really do. It's just... I keep wanting to smack the entire legal system involved.
I mean, Always Murder is a forgivable trope. Not an excellent one, but forgivable. But. Phoenix's clients are not so much "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as "guilty until someone else is proven guilty beyond any doubt". Which is really annoying in the last case of the second game; Phoenix is supposed to get a "not guilty" verdict for his client in the space of a single day. He manages to bring up evidence and testimony that point to another person being at the place and time, and his client not being there. But the verdict can't be given because there's no definitive evidence that this other person is the killer. And I'm all, "So? I'm supposed to be a defense attorney. Whether or not this other person actually did it is none of my concern, and nothing to do with my job. My job is to get you to suspect that my client didn't do it."
Then there's the fact that the prosecutors, and occasionally the witnesses, have more power over the trial than the judge does. Yes, the AAverse judge is something of a pushover, but that shouldn't mean the prosecution should be able to say "if this witness you want turns out to not help your case you need to automatically accept a guilty verdict".
