A man who has been part of the judicial system for much of his life, described to me how it works. And how it doesn't work.
One person is assigned to be a defense attorney. He or she will dive into the case, reading documents, interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence. The objective is to prove that the client is innocent, so only those particulars that support the premise are included. Others are ignored, or mitigated.
The prosecuting lawyer has a different strategy. She or he is focused on convincing the jury that the defendant is guilty, so those details rise to the top of the investigation.
My friend has watched these proceedings in court, but never once has he observed a change of heart.
"What?! I did not know about that testimony. That reframes everything. I abandon my case."
It seems that when we go looking for facts to buoy up our beliefs, that is what we find.
I admit it. If someone is offering reasons why the political figure I disapprove of is exemplary, I stop listening. If a conversation heads toward negating religion, my attention wanes. If the dialogue slides toward letting babies cry it out, I'm not interested.
Knowing this, it is perplexing that I resort to trying to unseat someone else's position, as if they are waiting to be proven wrong.
