I have been pondering a great deal about the great divide that is occurring in our country. The issues causing such great contention have been issues that have existed for many years. They are not new to this time or to this presidency.
So I was pondering why it has become so contentious and divisive. That made me think back to being a prosecutor. You see, a good prosecutor knows that their responsibility is not to win at any cost. It is to gather the facts fairly, analyze carefully and determine whether it is in the interest of justice to proceed in a case.
One of my greatest tools was to evaluate the evidence of the defense. They were not under the same requirement to share information that I was. So, I had to look to other witnesses, documents and try to determine what they might have that would allow them to prevail at trial. I had to evaluate their evidence to find the weaknesses in my own case. Sometimes they had a really good argument about a point. I just had to accept that and build the strength of my own arguments. Attorneys who knew me well knew that I would treat information they gave me with fairness. Sometimes, I changed my position based upon that information.
There were some things that neither side could do, like tamper with evidence or hide witnesses. Unfortunately, Perry Mason was known to do both. The reasons for those protections were to allow the judge or jury to clearly see the evidence in the case and make a determination as to the truth.
One of the things that people could not understand is how we could argue strongly against each other in court and still be friends. It was simple. We understood each other. We knew that the other side was doing what they believed to be right. Sometimes, we even understood that the other side was correct, but we had a different responsibility.
How could that be? Defense attorneys are necessary in order for our system to succeed. They must be able to separate their personal feelings about a client in order to protect the rights of that client. If they served as the judge and jury, their clients would not receive a fair trial.
I see the divisive issues in the same way. There may be two sides, with understandable arguments. We may not always know all of the information upon which the other side is relying. We need to listen to both sides. Unless the press becomes objective, we cannot rely on a single source for our information. People are biased and see things through their personal life experience and belief systems.
We are the judges in these contentious issues. We should insure that we are carefully evaluating to find the truth where it stands. Then, we must be strong enough to stand for the truth we find.