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

My opponent opens the second round by misquoting my first argument.In the first round I clearly state that "the interest of the people are represented by the prosecution".A criminal case, at least here in the US, is considered a crime against the state. [1] Therefore a public prosecutor represents the interests of the people of the State.This is of course not the same as saying that the interest of the people is to have the prosecution winning the case. My opponent is clearly well informed and versed in legal matters, therefore I assume that he is aware of the difference between my assertion that the prosecutor is representing the interest of the people and the false statement that the interest of the people is a victory of the prosecution and consider his argumentation a blatant attempt to twist my statement.In his next statement, my opponent opines that Grand Juries are "pointless". I strongly disagree with this opinion. During a Grand Jury trial the Judge can rule on weather or not different pieces of evidence can be used or not by both the prosecution and the defense. It is then the job of the Grand Jury to rule if the presumptive evidence is indeed reliable evidence.The Grand Jury does reduce the chance of an innocent person being put on trial because the alleged evidence is analyzed before the trial and deemed valid or not.Furthermore, at least in the US, a defense lawyer is very well allowed to attend the Grand Jury trial. I have no idea if this is not the case in New Zealand, but I really cannot imagine that it is and would like my opponent to provide a source for his statement that a defense lawyer that does not attend a Grand Jury trial would be arrested for contempt of court.My opponent goes on arguing that a trial in which two lawyers don't have the same ability to argue does not guarantee due process. This assumption is in my opinion plain wrong. First of all, there is no viable way to rank the ability of lawyers and therefore make sure that both the defense and the prosecution have equally good, or for that matter, bad, lawyers.Even if the lawyers were selected based on their percentage of won and lost cases, this would not represent their ability to argue a case since different cases are argued with different juries, situations and evidence. A due process is not guaranteed by the ability of the lawyers, but by the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. This means that the prosecution cannot use evidence that been acquired illegally or in any other way, shape of form break the law in the attempt to convict a citizen.My opponent argues that a person's financial circumstances influence the outcome of a trial at priori and that this fact puts less wealthy people at disadvantage. I do not agree with this point.Even though it is true that a rich person can afford to hire a lawyer that charges more and is allegedly better, the Jury decides cases based on the rule of law and on the evidence that is brought forward and a person is convicted when he or she is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.In order to validate his point that a more expensive lawyer automatically means greater chances of winning the case my opponent needs to provide evidence that clearly shows beyond statistical anomaly that trials that have been argued and lost by less expansive lawyers have been then won in appeal by more expansive ones. Without this proof, my opponent's argument remains an assumption.In his next point, my opponent states that "the police give the prosecution whatever evidence it needs."This argument is false and misleading. The police doesn't give the prosecution whatever evidence it needs, but whatever evidence it has. The police cannot just make evidence up to aid the prosecution and evidence that has been gained unlawfully cannot be used in a court of law. My opponent states that "The prosecution has direct and free access to the single largest, richest and most powerful private investigation organisation in the world."I have no idea what my opponent means with this sentence. Is it the CIA? MI6? The BND? This statement has no factual value whatsoever.Furthermore, my opponent states that "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."This statement is absolutely false and shows a high degree of ignorance of criminal law on the side of my opponent. By law, at least in the US, "In a criminal trial the prosecution is obliged to disclose to the defence, in advance of the trial, all relevant evidence which it has." [2]My opponent seems to believe that "justice" means having both the defense and the prosecution having to invest the same amount of work to gather evidence and also have the same amount of evidence.I believe that justice means convicting somebody who has been proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and absolving somebody who could not be proven guilty. Since my opponent has quoted CSI, I recommend him to gather more experience in a court of law instead of in front of a television set before trying to revolutionize the judicial system.In his closing statement my opponent argues that more money means "a better lawyer". I argue that more money means a more expansive lawyer. If my opponent wants to prove that more expansive lawyers are better lawyers he needs to bring forth proof of it.Furthermore, lawyers are not required to accept a case, therefore a high percentage of cases won does not necessarily say more about a lawyer's ability to argue the case than about his ability to accept easy to win cases.The central argument in this debate is that public defense is paid with taxpayers' money and that for a trial to be fair a defendant doesn't need an expansive lawyer but a lawyer who is qualified. Since no person can become a public defendant without passing the bar exam, every public defendant meets the qualifications.Giving the defense the same amount of money that is spent by the prosecution is a waste of taxpayers' money and would not guarantee fairer trials. [1] http://criminal.findlaw.com...[2] http://www.citizensinformation.ie...