That whatever the prosecution spends in a criminal case, the defence should be entitled to

His presumptions about the legal system in New Zealand are almost all correct - where they are not, I have indicated this. People's InterestsMy opponent asserts that the interests of the people are those of the prosecution. While it is true that the general public support justice, the public also strongly oppose it when people are wrongly sent to prison - if nothing else, it means they have to spend money on two trials, in addition to obvious moral problems. Therefore the public interest is really in making the trial as fair as possible. Therefore the people's interests lie just as much with both lawyers. However, even if it was the will of the people to have the prosecution win, that doesn't mean they should. The principle of due process is not predicated on public support, because we recognize that the public is not impartial. That's why we don't go around lynching loners on the grounds that they don't have any supporters and therefore have no civil rights. That kind of logic is barbaric and not something we should support through the judicial process. Probable CauseTo be put on trial, one does not need to have "probably" committed a crime - after all, the role of the jury in a criminal case is to establish that a crime was probably committed, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. In the US you have Grand Jury trials (all the other common law jurisdictions have abandoned them, most in favor of a judge reviewing the evidence). These exist to establish whether there is a prima face case, not a probable case. To establish a prima face case, a prosecutor needs have only one scrap of evidence. The trouble is, without the grand jury, a prosecutor without evidence still wouldn't get his case through the courts. Therefore the grand jury is pointless. Therefore it does not reduce the chance of an innocent person being put on trial. Even if it did, however, this objection is a bit of a non-issue because defense lawyers don't go to grand jury hearings (and if they did they'd be arrested for contempt of court). This debate is about whether we should equally pay lawyers at a criminal trial, not the grand jury trial that precedes it. Juries/Court selection gives due processThat system ensures that the decision-makers are fairly selected. It does not ensure that the lawyers are equally well able to argue their case. That is also important to due process because financial circumstance is, as I stated last round, an unfair advantage. Without engaging with my analysis his counter-narrative cannot stand. Prosecution needs more resources to present evidenceThe trouble with this line of reasoning is that the police give the prosecution whatever evidence it needs. The prosecution has direct and free access to the single largest, richest and most powerful private investigation organisation in the world. Contrast that to the defense, who don't have access to any of the evidence. To make the trial fair, they need to independently work out what happened for themselves - a process that is not only costly, but also very time-consuming. Even if the prosecution did need to garner up more resources (let us presume the police force disappeared) then the prosecution would not even be going to trial unless they already had enough evidence to begin with. Prosecuting lawyers do not do investigating like defense lawyers do. They have their evidence given to them. That's why you never see the folks from CSI wearing legal robes and silly wigs. Does more money mean a better defense? It means a better lawyer. As I stated last round, the good lawyers go where they can earn 4.6 times more doing less work. This begs the question of whether lawyers are in fact of different levels of quality. I contend that they are because some lawyers are more successful than others - be it due to experience or flair. My explanation is consistent with observable reality - most legal aid lawyers are law school grads or lawyers with very low success rates. Success rates for legal aid trials are far below what they are for non-legal aid trials. This kind of evidence is too insurmountable for you to ignore.