1. Do you think the adversarial system is the best method for solving disputes? Explain your opinion.
ment will
2. Indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is better that ten
guilty persons go free than that one innocent person suffer conviction." Explain your
opinion.
3. In a criminal case, should a lawyer defend a client he or she knows is guilty? Would you
defend someone you know to be guilty? Explain your opinion.
4. What reasons can you give to excuse the following people from serving on a jury; clergy,
attorneys, physicians, police officers, and convicted felons? Should everyone be required to
serve on a jury. Explain your opinion.
5. If you were a defense attorney questioning jurors at a voir dire in a murder trial, what
quesrions would you ask a potential juror?
6. For what reasons might an attorney use a peremptory challenge?

In some cases , it can be, if the defendant ( the person being advocated) is not able to defend ones self within their testimony, or having the ability to do so, the adversarial system can be a good place holder. But I will say there are multiple disadvantages and flaws in this type of system. In this system there is no actual evidence presented . For that reason many people can get away with infractions, and crimes because of the adversarial system.

Explanation:

personally, I think the truth can be found even without evidence, But I am highly skeptical about the fact that this sort of system would actually prove who is Innocent and who Is the criminal through no thorough or decisive evidence. I rest my case.

"quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a condition of their employment. only supervisors who have the authority to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, can commit "quid pro quo" harassment.

answer:

that sucks

explanation: