How would you respond: Shared decision making is a way to make sure there is not only one person makes a decision.

How would you respond:

Shared decision making is a way to make sure there is not only one person makes a decision. The judge has the ultimate decision on major factors but the defense, prosecutors, and jurors play a role. The prosecutors offer bail recommendations, the defense and prosecution work together on a plea agreement, and the jury is entrusted with the final decision (Neubauer, 2017). Shared decision making also helps in case something went wrong, it was shown everyone thought it was a good idea (Neubauer, 2017). I don't think that it violates the adversary system. There are safeguards in place to make sure the defendant is getting fair rights. There are checks and balances among the different parties to stop one from getting more power than the other. The Judge can disregard the jury's decision if they think it was improper and the jury can disregard the judge to have a fair verdict. The defense attorney can search out the rights of the accused. The defense is able to have the presumption of innocence until the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Neubauer, 2017).I think if anything this helps give the defendant's rights "more power". I think this because then they aren't being just pushed to the side because the prosecution thinks they're guilty or dangerous. The defendant gets the right to a fair trial no matter what. Even if the prosecution is very adamant on them being guilty and needing a high bond, the defense has the right to say that the defendant is not a danger and can request no jail time before trial. I think the adversary system is beneficial. With this system there is more than one person giving their side on the verdict. It also helps that more than one person have some powers, not just one person with all powers. This way they can all make sure everything is fair.