Judicial Reform of the Century: Get Rid of Prosecutors

participants of the judicial processes include the judge, jury, the accused and the defence counsel, the accusers, the detectives, witnesses, and a fact-checkerFigure 1: participants of the judicial processes include the judge, jury, the accused and the defence counsel, the accusers, the detectives, witnesses, and a fact-checker

The neutral fact-checker replaces the prosecutor. We see prosecution’s role as negative and non essential. Prosecutors, supposedly, represent the interests of society. However, the interests of the society are already taken care of by establishing the law that has been introduced by another representative of society’s interests before, and which was presumably broken. The trial itself, the judge, and the jury represent the interests of the society and the society itself, for that matter, because justice is in the interests of the society.

Historically the role of the prosecutor was to represent the interests of the monarch. The judges and laws were local, so somebody had to make sure that the interests of the Crown were protected. For example, a local judge could let a local thief go free, but it would be contrary to the interests of the Crown, so the prosecutor would call for hanging. And vice-versa, if the criminal could be useful for the monarch the prosecutor could save him. There is no monarchy anymore, but we still have it’s agent weighing heavily on the “guilty” cup of the scales.

We consider a neutral fact-checker who is presented by the court with a list of simple non-personal facts to check, compiled by the defence and offence. A multitude of simple facts is very hard to calculate and remember, and pretty much impossible to falsify. He or she must work in isolation from other participants and not be aware of which fact was submitted for scrutiny by which party. That person’s role is akin to a method of filtering data, known in the field of Information Technology as “sanitizing the input.”

Leave a Reply