Great stuff Steven. As an amateur who is fascinated by the law, I watch Law and Order. I am shocked at the intensity of prosecution sometimes and often wonder why just because the "can" does that mean they "should?" Happens in almost half the episodes it seems.
Thanks so much, Frank. Really glad you enjoyed it.
The should can become even more complicated, even when the can is clear. Not just whether I should charge someone generally, but also what should I charge them with if I do? What would I be willing to settle for in a plea? What should an appropriate sentencing range look like?
And that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface on the “should evaluation” in terms of actually trying the case, which evidence to use or hold back, which witnesses to call, not call, or leave for rebuttal, etc etc.
I’m fond of saying that there are very few instances where “justice” can be defined as a single result. Justice could usually be served within a window of possible results. And our goal is to make sure that the resolution of the case just falls somewhere within that window — and more importantly, that we followed the right process and protected the defendant’s rights while vindicating the interests of victims and protecting the public.
As Americans, we instinctively know that justice isn’t defined primarily by results but instead by process.
If Joe Jones goes in and robs a bank, but we can only catch him and convict him by coercing him into confessing, then if he is found guilty at trial, would we say that justice was done? After all he DID do it. He is “guilty” of the crime.
But I think we all agree that the result — even though it was the “correct” result that reflects the truth of the crime — was unjust. Because process defines justice, not results.
Really enjoyed this, Steven. The ‘can’ and ‘should’ distinction hits hard, and the sandwich-throwing exercise had me grinning. Love seeing you pull back the curtain on a part of the system most of us never get to understand.
Thank you, brother. Simple doesn’t always mean easy! And there is a lot of emotion out there about certain cases which can cloud the discussion and the process.
I love how you break down “can” versus “should.”
I’ve seen how clarity and structured frameworks make complex decisions feel manageable in my work with content systems.
Teaching the process this way is key, and I often explore similar methods for helping creators think and act with consistency in my Notes.
Absolutely. All about process. Consistently applying sound process produces consistent sound results.
Processes and Consistency
Great stuff Steven. As an amateur who is fascinated by the law, I watch Law and Order. I am shocked at the intensity of prosecution sometimes and often wonder why just because the "can" does that mean they "should?" Happens in almost half the episodes it seems.
Thanks so much, Frank. Really glad you enjoyed it.
The should can become even more complicated, even when the can is clear. Not just whether I should charge someone generally, but also what should I charge them with if I do? What would I be willing to settle for in a plea? What should an appropriate sentencing range look like?
And that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface on the “should evaluation” in terms of actually trying the case, which evidence to use or hold back, which witnesses to call, not call, or leave for rebuttal, etc etc.
I’m fond of saying that there are very few instances where “justice” can be defined as a single result. Justice could usually be served within a window of possible results. And our goal is to make sure that the resolution of the case just falls somewhere within that window — and more importantly, that we followed the right process and protected the defendant’s rights while vindicating the interests of victims and protecting the public.
As Americans, we instinctively know that justice isn’t defined primarily by results but instead by process.
If Joe Jones goes in and robs a bank, but we can only catch him and convict him by coercing him into confessing, then if he is found guilty at trial, would we say that justice was done? After all he DID do it. He is “guilty” of the crime.
But I think we all agree that the result — even though it was the “correct” result that reflects the truth of the crime — was unjust. Because process defines justice, not results.
Really enjoyed this, Steven. The ‘can’ and ‘should’ distinction hits hard, and the sandwich-throwing exercise had me grinning. Love seeing you pull back the curtain on a part of the system most of us never get to understand.
Thank you, brother. Simple doesn’t always mean easy! And there is a lot of emotion out there about certain cases which can cloud the discussion and the process.