Serial Liars
Evan Whitton
The 1.6 billion people in the English-speaking world could not have a worse legal system. Criminal law is unfair to victims, police and public. Civil law is unfair to some in business and the professions. More than 50% of major criminals get off. Judges are not trained.
The system will improve when the public, who fund it, understand why and how it is unjust, and insist that legislators make the necessary changes. I believe Serial Liars helps that understanding.
The Preface (see Preview) notes a unique experience that prompted 14 years of research. I observed at first hand how the West's two legal systems dealt successively with a corrupt police chief. The European investigative system revealed a Niagara of evidence against him; the Anglo-American adversary system said there was none.
How could that be? It emerged that the investigative system searches for the truth, and trained judges control the process, whereas the adversary system actively conceals the truth, and trial lawyers control the evidence, and hence the process, and hence the money.
The Contents (also in Preview) point to much new information, e.g. where the two systems came from; the adversary system's 26 anti-truth devices; how the investigative system works; how it puts away 90% of the guilty; and how a civil hearing takes about a day in total.
The new data may be why an English lawyer wrote in The Times: "[Serial Liars] should be required reading for all law students ... in fact, it should be read by everyone involved in the law." (See Reviews)
Evan's Archive includes some of my pieces from the legal journal Justinian (www.justinian.com.au). One item shows how Aristotle's petitio principii fallacy (arguing in a circle) is used to (wrongly) justify adversarial ethics, or lack thereof.