When the System Becomes the Case; John Lescroart's Hard Evidence
We do not talk about the justice system the way we talk about other failing systems. We talk about education as strained, healthcare as fragmented, and infrastructure as aging. Justice, by contrast, is still spoken of as if it were intact but misunderstood, principled but misapplied. The language stays reverent even as trust erodes. We ask whether outcomes were fair, rarely whether the structure itself is designed to prefer certain outcomes over others.
That is the environment in which Hard Evidence now lives, even if it was written decades earlier. When John Lescroart published the book, the courtroom thriller was already a familiar form, confident, procedural, reassuring in its insistence that truth would surface if the rules were followed closely enough. What Lescroart quietly questioned was not whether the rules worked, but what they worked for.
I gave the book four stars because it resists the reader’s desire for comfort. It opens with the signals of a spectacle, a high-status victim, lurid evidence, public attention, and the suggestion that this case matters because important people are watching. That framing feels familiar, even now. We are still drawn to cases that announce their importance through wealth, visibility, or outrage. But Lescroart does not linger on that bait. He moves quickly to the machinery behind the spectacle, the offices, the meetings, the conversations where cases are shaped long before a jury hears a word.
Dismas Hardy begins inside that machinery, working as a prosecutor, believing not blindly but sincerely that proximity to the state confers moral advantage. The book takes its time dismantling that belief. Evidence does not fail because it is false, but because it is inconvenient. Narratives harden not because they are proven, but because they are defensible. Risk is managed not in terms of justice, but in terms of exposure. None of this is presented as corruption. That is the point. It is presented as normal.
The novel’s most important move, Hardy’s shift from prosecution to defense, is treated with the same restraint. There is no epiphany, no moral thunderclap. The change feels less like a decision than a consequence. Once Hardy understands that the system’s first loyalty is to its own continuity, staying becomes an act of complicity. Leaving does not make him righteous. It simply makes him honest about where truth is most likely to be contested rather than curated.
That shift reads as novel even now because we still resist it culturally. We praise prosecutors for being tough and defense attorneys for being clever, but we rarely ask why one role is assumed to serve justice more naturally than the other. In current debates about prosecutorial discretion, plea pressure, and public accountability, we focus on individual bad actors rather than on structural incentives. Lescroart’s book insists, without declaring it, that incentives are the story.
Reading Hard Evidence today, it is hard not to see the parallels. We live in an era where cases are tried in public long before they reach a courtroom, where institutional credibility is defended as aggressively as verdicts, and where procedural correctness can coexist comfortably with moral unease. The book does not predict these conditions, but it explains how easily they arise. Systems built to endure learn quickly what threatens them, and they respond accordingly.
What lingers after the final pages is not the resolution of the case, but the cost of awareness. Hardy does not emerge cleansed or victorious. He emerges displaced. He has chosen a position that offers less certainty and fewer protections, but greater honesty about what is at stake. That tradeoff feels increasingly familiar in a time when faith in institutions is asked for rather than earned.
This is not a book that reassures the reader that justice will prevail if the right people are in charge. It suggests something more uncomfortable, that justice depends on where pressure is applied, and who is willing to stand where the system is most likely to push back. That is why the side change matters. Not as a clever plot device, but as a refusal to accept that the moral high ground is assigned by title.
The novel closes without restoring equilibrium, and that feels right. We do not live in equilibrium. We live inside systems that function efficiently while asking individuals to absorb the ethical residue. Hard Evidence does not solve that problem. It simply refuses to look away from it, and in doing so, it asks the reader a question it never answers, where would you stand once you understood how the machine really works.
Comments
Post a Comment