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

I would like to begin by issuing a friendly reminder that no new lines of argumentation may be opened in this round. In my view this debate comes down to three key points of clash:1) Whether the grand jury model adopted by 22 of the US states is an effective counter model.2) Whether non-legal aid lawyers can in fact be shown to be better.3) Whether legal aid lawyers have a more difficult jobEach of these issues I shall address in detail below, and discuss why I have won each of them.1. Grand JuriesFirst, common law countries generally don't have grand juries like my opponent asserts multiple times. Grand juries have been abolished in all common law jurisdictions bar the United States, and even there many states opt not to use Grand Juries. The whole point of the judicial system is to weigh up conflicting evidence and, in criminal trials, to determine whether there is any reasonable doubt, on the basis of the evidence, as to whether a crime has been committed. Grand juries are meant to streamline this process by checking whether the prosecution actually has any evidence. It does not check whether the defense has evidence to refute the prosecution's claim. If a defense lawyer was present with the grand jury, the grand jury is considered unable to decide whether there is a prima face case, because the defense lawyer will naturally be there for the purpose of making counter-arguments. Grand juries are not to discuss counter-arguments - that is for the courts to do - but rather to check whether there is evidence. That is the case, even in the US. From the US LawInfo site: "Neither the accused nor their attorneys are present and are generally not even allowed in a grand jury proceeding. A criminal defense attorney is also not allowed to provide assistance or representation for the accused in a grand jury indictment. "My opponent states that Grand Juries reduce the risk of an innocent person being put on trial because it creates an extra layer of scrutiny for the prosecution's evidence. However, this is not the case. A grand jury only looks at one side of the picture, and for the trial to be truly fair, and have due process, both sides of the story need to be looked at. That is why we have trials, and that is why even if the grand jury is heavily biased, the trial can still be fair because the court hearing that follows it is fair. That's why I said Grand Juries make no difference in the context of this present debate. The problem is with the quality of representation at the trial itself, not the fact that the trial was brought in the first place. The problem is therefore not solved by implementing a grand jury system, and is not solved in states that have grand juries. Therefore, I should win this point.2. Other lawyers better due to higher payMy opponent claims there is no link between pay and quality of representation. By his narrative, all lawyers provide an equal standard of representation. That's false. Some do better at law school than others. Some have many years of experience behind them. Some have experience dealing with particular types of cases or courts. Some have done honors or even higher legal qualifications. These lawyers will be superior. My argument is that superior lawyers will be able to have a competitive advantage when high-paying law firms seek to hire good lawyers. Therefore these better lawyers will not be available for legal aid law work. My opponent's only engagement with this analysis, which I brought in round one, was that I had not shown an empirical link between pay and experience. I do not need to show this. What I have shown is that a better lawyer is more likely to get a better job, and I have stated reasons why better lawyers exist. One proof is enough to bring a claim, not two proofs as my opponent attests. Therefore, I should win this point. However, if you need empirical evidence, how about the well-publicized American trials of OJ Simpson or Micheal Jackson? Ever wondered why billionaires almost never go to jail? Ever wondered why 70% of the prisoners in your (predominantly white) country are non-white? It is because white people are, on average, wealthier? Is it because the rich can afford justice? That's what I think. Just as in all other areas of life, in law you get what you pay for. If you pay for a good lawyer, you will get good representation. That's been my case from the beginning. I'd like to hear from my opponent what he thinks the scales of Lady Justice were actually weighing. Until then, I should win this point.3. Job difficultyMy opponent notes that "The police doesn't give the prosecution whatever evidence it needs, but whatever evidence it has. " I believe that was plagiarized from Captain Obvious. It's the police's job in society to investigate crime. The process of investigation involves finding evidence. The purpose of finding evidence is to get a conviction. So the evidence the police finds, and therefore has, will be that which gets a conviction for whoever the police believe, based on the evidence, did the crime. This evidence is given to the defense, sure . .. but what the defense needs is not evidence showing that the crime was done, but rather evidence that the crime was not done. Let me give an example. In the famous trial of David Cullen Bain, one of the most notorious murder cases in New Zealand, the police gathered information which showed David was guilty. This led to David's conviction in 1994. David's defense team believed his innocence, however, and gathered information showing David's father was guilty. This led to his acquittal, on retrial, in 2009. In both cases the defense team representing Bain was more or less the same. This shows that the police didn't gather information to help the defense. They gathered information to get a conviction. Now, it happens that Bain was wealthy enough to afford a 15-year investigation team. Somebody relying on legal aid doesn't get that privilege. The defense must assemble a case, often having to go on the fact situation the police have given them because they are unable to investigate themselves. You don't go to court to get justice, but rather to outmaneuver the other side's arguments. One side is inherently advantaged because they have an argument already set up for them by the police. All they need to do is apply the law. The defense must either argue on a fine point of law, which is dangerous, or better still convince the judge that the crime was not committed. The second option cannot be taken without some independent investigation, however - investigation which the prosecution doesn't need to do. Since the defense has to investigate as well as do their ordinary work, they have a harder job than prosecutors. Therefore, I should win this point too. I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate with me. It certainly has been an excellent discussion. If you believe in fair justice, if you believe in equal representation, if you believe loaning money to help your struggling neighbor is an ethical investment, if you believe money spent in ensuring due process is money well spent, if you believe in equal opportunity even in the courtroom, if you take a stand against miscarriage of justice, please show your support by voting pro. Thank you very much.