Some Blog Site

In general, playing offense is easier than playing defense.  Defense has to perfect, but offense has to be good only part of the time.  For example, in football, the offense can fail 75% of the time but still drive down the field and score.  In hockey, the offense usually takes 29 shots at the goal, but only 3 go in, and that’s good enough.  (Hockey and football – it’s a good time of year.)

I was thinking that the same principle should apply to lawyering: it should be easier to be the prosecuting attorney than the defense attorney.  But it seems that the prosecutors have a harder time, at least in the high-profile cases.  That’s because the rules are that the prosecution must be beyond a reasonable doubt, and “scoring” is not as straightforward as in sports.  In the lawyer world, you win by convincing the jury of something, and perception counts for a lot: witness credibility, character testimony, etc.  So the offense can be good, but the defense just has to create a reasonable doubt, not necessarily stop all of the offensive shots.

Or maybe it is easier to be the prosecutor.  I have no lawyerly experience, so I’ll stick to sports.  Offense is over-rated, because it’s easier.  Defenders should get more credit for the job they do.  In my opinion, the MVP of Super Bowl 34 (AKA SB XXXIV) should have been linebacker Mike Jones.  The offense gets the glory: would Charles Woodson have won the Heisman Trophy if he hadn’t played offense and returned punts too?