Blonde Justice wrote yesterday about dealing with a none-too-bright prosecutor:
So, I continued, “Look, she’s been through a lot, but she’s getting her
life straightened out. She’s seeing a psychiatrist and a
At which point the prosecutor interrupted, “Wait.”
Wait? Maybe she’s starting to get it?
she continued, “You expect me to believe there’s a difference between a
psychiatrist and a psychologist? You’re just trying to pull the wool
over my eyes. You’re just trying to confuse me.”
A law school might be forgiven for graduating someone who doesn’t know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist . . . maybe. For good or ill, we don’t expect lawyers (much less baby lawyers) to be polymaths or even well-rounded human beings.
A DA’s office might be forgiven for hiring someone who doesn’t know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. After all, what good is a broad liberal education to a trial lawyer?*
But there’s something wrong with a prosecutor who not only doesn’t know the difference, but thinks that a criminal-defense lawyer is “trying to pull the wool over her eyes” by talking about psychologists and psychiatrists. This prosecutor, with no job or career or life experience, who has never “walked a mile in any shoes”, won’t confess her ignorance but instead blames the defense lawyer (the enemy, don’tcha know) for trying to confuse her.
Blonde Justice is making a point that is a favorite of mine: that we should expect those in a position to decide other people’s futures to have some clue how the world works. I’m not sure the Blonde’s prosecutor would be any less dim if the world were allowed to knock her down a few times, but at least she would have a better sense of her own shortcomings.
*Yes, that’s irony you detect.