The two-sided structure that is our justice system often causes more problems than it serves to solve. Known as adversarialism, this deeply established method is one of the primary causes of tunnel vision between the two sides in the courtroom — the prosecution and the defense.

With these two sides so heavily pitted against each other and only each other, it is easy to lose sight of the primary goal of the justice system. That is, to achieve justice in accordance with our countries laws and regulations. Instead, the prosecution or police will often fall into a mindset where they are too focused on punishment and dealing out consequences.

The same can be said for the defense and the lawyers representing those on trial. As they become more and more invested in the case, it becomes less about uncovering the truth and more about winning. While it may seem like these two things are one and the same, they couldn’t be farther from each other when it comes to the courtroom.

Think of it this way (the only way I can currently understand as a high school student): in the college admissions process, you are being evaluated in comparison to your region and the students in areas closest to you, especially those in your own school.

This may start to turn the college admissions process into a competition, as students become more cutthroat when realizing another students’ success could mean their failure. In reality, even if there are 1000 ambitious students in a region, they can all go somewhere good and worthwhile despite the success of those around them.

Instead of focusing on winning and beating out those around them, students are encouraged to focus on their own success and growth as the end goal is an individual outcome. In a similar manner, the adversarialism shifts the focus of a trial to beating the other side rather than fulfilling the responsibilities of the prosecution/police and the defense.

It may not seem like such a strong issue — what harm could strong motivation do? Despite this seemingly correct assumption, adversarialism causes either side to become too committed to the case, which is possible.

Because of this, both sides will specifically seek out evidence and testimony that confirms their biases and perspectives. This leads to a butterfly effect of evidence being wrongly presented along with falsified, faulty testimony.

There are ways to combat the tunnel vision produced by this two-sided structure, ranging from training which emphasizes the true responsibilities of each side to things as serious as disciplinary proceedings. Such proceedings would be a much stronger approach to reforms in comparison to weaker attempts like reversal of convictions. Simply doing this would not always be applicable if the misconduct of the prosecution was deemed harmless.

The debate as to whether the adversarialism system has more cons than pros continues to remain a prominent issue, yet dealing with its consequences in the present is the most important subject. Understanding that a winning-based approach clouds the minds of both the prosecution/police and the defense is the first step towards discovering reforms which will push the system closer to its true purpose — justice.