Just as on many occasions you can talk and talk about the best way to deal with a lawsuit, a controversy from the point of defense, that is, from the point of view of getting the best possible standing, it is also fair to devote an article to the point of view of the charge, the prosecution, the party charged with making the accused pay the alleged damage, the person responsible for getting the accused ceases to be presumed to be guilty, that is condemned, and with the greatest possible punishment.
Once again, in this situation we will expose it from a vision that may seem not very politically correct but that has the whole meaning of the world. The reality is one, but of truths there are always at least two and those are the ones that shape the final reality, because it is one but not immutable, it can be ductile and malleable.
What is meant is that, just as the legal and legitimate duty of the defense must use all the legal tools that are available to get acquittal or the least penalty for their interests, the prosecution must do the same, but in reverse: the accusation has to use all the chicanery, all the tricks and all possible legal loopholes to get the other party to be condemned, because if he cannot get it can be unfairly acquitted.
In the same way that it is expressed for defense cases, using all the tools that are available to achieve the objectives pursued does not mean that we should skip legality, it does not mean that we should go beyond our functions and capabilities, simply means that within the law, within what the law allows us to do everything possible to win the case.
Some will say that this can lead to unjustly condemning someone or punishing him with a higher penalty than he deserves. Once again we are talking about doing justice of course, but above all, seen from the interests in this case of the prosecutor in all its extent we are talking about winning a cause, not win on the basis of condemn an innocent person but to demonstrate as his guilt.
Obviously, the best way to win a case for the prosecution is for the defense party to assume his guilt and not have to prepare any legal attack. There are many cases that the defendant may opt to try to reach an agreement with the prosecution in order to avoid going through a process that may have even worse consequences to the glaring evidence of guilt and, by the side of the prosecution, even if the case seems to have been won with certainty, it is always better not to take risk, to avoid long processes and to come to a conformity that avoids the possibility of losing or of greatly delaying the matter.
Obviously, not all assumptions will be suitable for this type of agreement, nor in all cases will be interested or want or can reach any agreement. For all these assumptions you have to have all the artillery ready and know how to use it.
A legal battle, a legal dispute is nothing more than a war, than a game of fencing or rather a game of chess where every move of the board is intended to achieve a concrete result.
A legal battle seeks to do justice, yes, but above all you should claim to win as it was said. And to win the cards must know how to move properly, the game must be known to play and must be kept in mind that the other party also plays and that if we do not go to all, that if we are not willing to face the accusation with the greatest decision and without hesitation will the other party which will use all of the legal tricks, all the possibilities that are in your hand to win. In the background it is not about anything other than one or the other and it is always better to be the winner than the loser.