"I always received much more satisfaction as a defense attorney in obtaining an acquittal for a client than I ever have as a D.A. in obtaining a conviction. All my interests and sympathies tend to be on the side of the individual as opposed to the state"

Jim Garrison expresses a profound personal preference and philosophical alignment with the role of the defense attorney rather than the prosecutor. He describes finding greater satisfaction in securing an acquittal for a client than in achieving a conviction as a district attorney. This perspective underscores a fundamental divide between the functions of defense and prosecution within the justice system. For Garrison, helping an individual overcome the vast power of the state is not just a professional triumph but an act of deep personal significance, aligning with his ethical sympathies.

His words illustrate a belief in the importance of protecting the rights of the individual from potential governmental overreach. The state's resources and authority can seem overwhelming to a single defendant, and in that imbalance, Garrison finds his motivation. The outcome of an acquittal, especially in the face of prosecution, symbolizes not just a technical win, but the successful preservation of personal liberty and the affirmation of legal safeguards. For him, each acquittal represents a check against the encroachment of state power, a tangible defense of civil liberties.

As a prosecutor, his victories might have felt impersonal, perhaps underscored by the machinery of the state moving inexorably forward. Conversely, defending an individual, standing as their advocate, and succeeding against the odds likely felt more meaningful. Garrison’s sympathies are clear: he values the underdog, feels the weight of state power, and is wary of its potential for misuse. This belief system highlights a deeper philosophical debate embedded in the legal profession: the tension between law as a tool for collective order and an instrument for the protection of personal freedom.

Ultimately, his statement reflects an ideal of justice not as the relentless pursuit of convictions, but as the balanced safeguarding of individual rights, ensuring that the power of the state is always held in check by the passionate advocacy of those who defend the accused.