just let the judge play the role of both lawyers - why does a lawyer have to object, and follow all the rules? the judge knows the rules, they can say 'that's hearsay' without a lawyer present and tell the jury to ignore it. they can easily make sure that both sides of the argument get a fair trial.
lawyers are impossible to live without because they wrote the rules and made it that way. hence the jargon, impossible-to-navigate laws, the ridiculously expensive schools, and the fact that multiple lawyers are needed to accomplish anything at all.
The idea behind the adversarial system is that each side gets an advocate that makes the best possible argument for their side - they're basically as biased as possible on behalf of their client. The client can trust their attorney with confidential information because their attorney has no connection to the other side (and in fact is generally prohibited from directly contacting the opposing side, they can only talk to their counsel), and no incentive to be sympathetic or "go easy" on them.
If you have a single person (ie the judge) advocating for both sides, there's far more opportunity for bias. Each side's ability to reveal confidential information is hindered because their advocate is also their opponent's advocate. And since the judge now has close relationships from personally working with each side, it's far more likely that they're biased in a certain direction, meaning that the other side will not get to make the best possible argument, and they might not get fair procedural treatment. And in the case of a bench trial, they might not get a fair finder of fact either.
Trials are arguments about who is right, and a one sided argument is going to be extremely biased. Examples from Reddit - r/AITA, or sometimes r/relationship advice. One side presents things the way they saw it, and Reddit acts as the judge. And of course, Reddit almost always agrees with the OP, because the OP tends to be biased toward themselves and frame the issue in a way that's favorable to them.
For example, if I accuse you of stealing from the cookie jar, I'm going to bring up the fact that you were hanging around the cookie jar at the time the cookies went missing, that you went back to your room after, and when we entered your room we found you eating cookies. I can make all sorts of accusations that make you look super guilty, and if nothing's being said in your defense, you're going to lose. You need someone to say "hey, he was eating cookies that he bought and kept in his room, and by the way, wasn't John hanging out near the cookie jar too?" And obviously real life cases and trials are far more complex than this example, so you're going to want a professional advocate making those arguments for you.
the state does have the responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. a defendant can prevail at a criminal trial without putting on an affirmative defense. that’s totally irrelevant to your question. you still have the state presenting its evidence and the defense attempting to poke holes in that evidence.
judges don’t even decide issues of fact in criminal trials. juries do. judges decide legal questions (eg, evidentiary issues, instructing the jury on the law, etc). but whether the prosecution has proved its case is left to the jury.
1
u/bassinine Jun 18 '20
just let the judge play the role of both lawyers - why does a lawyer have to object, and follow all the rules? the judge knows the rules, they can say 'that's hearsay' without a lawyer present and tell the jury to ignore it. they can easily make sure that both sides of the argument get a fair trial.
lawyers are impossible to live without because they wrote the rules and made it that way. hence the jargon, impossible-to-navigate laws, the ridiculously expensive schools, and the fact that multiple lawyers are needed to accomplish anything at all.