Peirspictiochtai Ar An Saol
Zero-Based Justice
Part Seven
The current system of justice in the United States is called an "adversarial" justice system.
What that means is that there must be a conflict between two parties. A conflict that needs resolution from an impartial and fair judge or jury. Two parties "fight" – not physically, but through words, documents, and other evidence – against each other over a specific issue in a courtroom.
For many participating in this adversarial justice system, winning is the goal – not necessarily justice.
"Winning" is equated with "justice" in this adversarial justice system.
Perhaps, winning by "Participant A" results in justice. Perhaps not.
In a criminal case, a prosecutor representing a governmental entity "fights" against a defense attorney representing an individual or individuals. In a civil case, a plaintiff attorney representing a client suing for damages "fights" against a defense attorney representing the party being sued.
Please note that in some cases, an individual may choose to represent themselves in a court case. That individual may have substantial legal experience or may have no legal experience at all.
This news column focuses on the situations where there are attorneys are on both sides of a court case. Each attorney representing their client to the best of their abilities. Each attorney striving to present the best case possible to secure the outcome desired by their client.
A prosecutor or a plaintiff attorney presents their best argument for a conviction against a defendant or a judgment against a defendant, respectively, in a criminal case or a civil case.
A defense attorney presents their best argument for an acquittal of a defendant in a criminal case or a judgment for a defendant in a civil case.
In between the opposing sides sits a judge. The judge can serve two functions: One, to be a neutral referee that sets out the legal ground rules for a court proceeding. And two, if the case does not include a jury, deciding which side will prevail in a court case.
In a criminal case where a judge makes the decision regarding the case, the judge will determine if the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" of the charge or charges made against the defendant. In a civil case where a judge makes the decision regarding the case, the judge will determine if the judgment is for the defendant or against the defendant.
When a case includes a jury, the members of that jury make similar types of decisions. In a criminal case, the jury considers the evidence presented to decide if the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" of the charge or charges made against the defendant. In a civil case, the jury considers the evidence presented to determine if a judgment is found for the defendant or against the defendant.
A mistrial is declared by a judge if, in a jury trial, the jury is unable to reach a decision regarding the matter in front of the jury.
In the best of circumstances, the attorneys on both sides of a case have equal or almost equal competence, equal or almost equal knowledge, and equal or almost equal experience.
In the best of situations, both attorneys on either side of an argument have equal or almost equal soft skills, especially knowing how to communicate in a respectful manner to a judge as well as members of a jury, opposing counsel, and witnesses.
It's also best if both attorneys in a case have the ability to listen carefully to instructions from a judge and testimony provided in a court setting. It's critical that both attorneys have the skills to think on their feet and to respond in the moment.
The problem is that attorneys on both sides in a court case are not always equal or almost equal.
Defendants with wealth, power, and connections generally have the ability to secure legal representation with the best possibilities of a desired outcome. That doesn't mean that all in those positions can do so, and it doesn't mean that their desired outcome is guaranteed, but it does make it more possible.
Defendants with lower incomes, limited or no authority, and few – if any – connections generally do not have the same ability to secure legal representation. That doesn't mean that all in these positions will be unable to secure equal or almost equal legal representation as those with wealth, power, and connections, and it doesn't mean that their desired outcome won't happen, but it does make it less possible.
Think of a courtroom as if it's a baseball diamond – a baseball diamond that is the site of two professional baseball teams facing off against each other. Umpires stand by to make sure all the players follow the rules of the game. The umpires also make sure the coaches and other personnel in the dugouts and on the sidelines do not interfere with the game. When a player, a coach, or someone else violates the rules of the game, the umpire issues a penalty. If there is an unforeseen situation – an individual player is injured during the game, for example – the umpires stop the game.
Many would consider this baseball game to be a fair competition between two professional baseball teams.
Now think of that baseball game as one between two different types of baseball teams. Both know the general rules of the game. Both have the same number of players on their individual teams.
But that's where the similarities end.
Let's consider that one team is the top professional baseball team in its league. This team has substantial resources to secure the best available talent, skilled in the game of baseball, and willing to spend whatever is necessary to win.
The second team? Let's consider that that second team is composed of individuals who play baseball in a local baseball league for enjoyment. The individual baseball players on the second team have full-time jobs in manufacturing plants. They usually play baseball against teams composed of other individuals who also have full-time jobs at local industries.
Are both teams equal or almost equal?
On paper, both teams have players who can play baseball, and those players all know the rules of the game.
Each of the players wants to win.
But equal or almost equal?
No.
Can that team of baseball professionals with substantial resources lose a game?
Yes.
Can that team of industrial workers who play baseball for fun win a game?
Yes.
But how often do those outcomes occur?
It's the same in an adversarial justice system where both sides are represented by attorneys who each represent their client to the best of their abilities.
Are both sides represented by individual attorneys who are equal or almost equal?
On paper, both sides have attorneys who can practice law, and those attorneys each know the rules of the court.
Each of the attorneys wants to win.
But equal or almost equal.
No.
Can an individual with substantial resources and an outstanding attorney lose a court case?
Yes.
Can an individual without substantial resources and an attorney who has just graduated from law school win a court case?
Yes.
But how often do those outcomes occur?
The question that can be asked is how often does equal representation in a court proceeding actually occur under the current adversarial system of justice in the United States.
The next news column in this series will continue to detail specific characteristics of justice as it is practiced today in many parts of the United States as well as ways that justice could be practiced through Zero-Based Justice.
Peirspictiochtai Ar A Saol – Gaelic – Irish – for "Perspectives On Life" is a column focused on aspects of accountability and responsibility as well as ways people look at life.
Contact Richard McDonough at
© 2026 Richard McDonough
