When we speak of an adversarial system, it refers to a legal system practiced in common law countries where two competent representatives, called advocates, lawyers, attorneys or barristers depending on the jurisdiction, while representing their clients argue out their cases before an impartial third party, which may include more than one persons, often referred to as the jury, who access the arguments of such parties and issue a suitable judgment. The advocates are at liberty to choose which issues they are to address, the kind of evidence they will adduce before the court or the jury and the number of witnesses they will call in order to substantiate their case.
In this system, a person who has an issue, and in particular in criminal matters, is represented by an advocate who speaks on their behalf before the jury. Due to such circumstances there exists a relationship between the client and the advocate in the sense that they are to exercise full disclosure while the advocate has a duty of care to ensure that such evidence as they collect from the client is not leaked out to a third party. The question of whether I would represent a murderer under such circumstance is met with the answer, by all means yes! The law does not only function to establish who is right and who is wrong but to also ensure that the rights of all parties are respected. In as much as a party may have committed a crime under law, it is also important to appreciate that their rights are protected by the same law, and that they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. There are many circumstances that surround a case, and operating in the preconceived idea that a party is guilty is an infringement on their right to a fair hearing. A party may have committed a crime but after both parties argue out their case, the court finds that there were justifiable reasons as to why such a crime was committed.