It's not weird at all - the courts in the US are an adversarial system. You have defense attorneys making claims that courts later reject, or counsel in civil cases making claims that a judge later decides the merits of. Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal.
> Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal.
In this context that is often the cause of a very serious inequity. The government has lawyers funded by the taxpayers arguing for the government's position against the public, but no taxpayer-funded lawyers are provided to represent the public against the government. Predictably the public interest then gets the short end of the stick in any case where there are no well-heeled private interests willing to pick up the tab.
It's like asking, shouldn't the CEO be representing the interests of the shareholders? In theory, but it's a classic principal-agent problem. The agents have different goals than the principals and can be expected to try to game or corrupt whatever system is in place to make them accountable.
The trouble is that the accountability system in government doesn't take that into account. The state's attorney is presumed to be representing the interests of the public, so nobody is provided to argue the contrary position when the state's attorney ignores his duty by advancing the interests of the state instead.
