I have a few minutes and this topic is important.
....................
I hate the adversarial “justice” system.
It is not based on trying to find the truth, but it is based on WINNING, regardless of truth, regardless of guilt or innocence, regardless of harm done or not.
It perfectly goes hand in hand with Capitalism. Winners and losers, regardless of worth or harm to society.
It is based on lies, theatrics, emotional manipulation and loopholes to get the guilty off or punishing the innocent if that is what it takes to win the case.
I am a scientist, intent on trying to find the truth.
Scientists often have conferences, symposiums, etc., to discuss one specific idea and find out if it is true or false.
They usually don’t appoint one scientist to argue for, and another to argue against, the idea, ignoring and attacking everything the other said – they just take turns looking at the issue, examining it from all angles, listening to each other, modifying their own thoughts on the subject, based on what they hear from the others and trying to reach a consensus.
Niels Bohr once said to Wolfgang Pauli: "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct"
Scientist are usually intent on finding the truth, rather than winning the argument even if they are wrong.
Scientists are also fighting with each other (in some environments, not in others) but the warfare is about personal ambition and not about scientific truth.
In this battle it never happens that both sides would deliberately falsify scientific truth in order to 'win' (with the exception of VERY few cases, and they are ALWAYS found out and punished for it).
If there is a disagreement about scientific truth (and there are plenty), it is based on HONEST differences of opinion, with both parties intent on finding the TRUTH (again, with a VERY few exceptions).
Now compare this to the adversarial 'justice' system (where the opposite is the norm) and you will see what I am talking about.
One example of how science is done (as opposed to 'justice') is the epic battle between Einstein and Bohr:
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr spent over 25 years arguing about the Uncertainty Principle. Einstein would dream up thought-experiments to prove that the theory was incorrect and Bohr would prove Einstein wrong every time. Until, one day, at the 1930 Solvay conference, Einstein managed to come up with one example that completely baffled Bohr, who went to bed and spent a sleepless night trying to find a way to prove Einstein wrong, yet one more time.
Next morning they met at breakfast, each with a huge grin on his face. Einstein was convinced that he finally defeated Bohr. Bohr, on the other hand, had found the mistake Einstein had made - Albert forgot to take only one thing into consideration: the effect of his own General Theory of Relativity. There was much merriment around the table that morning!
Now, can you imagine this attitude between defense and prosecution where both parties are intent on finding the truth, instead of winning by any means, including lies, omissions, misrepresentation, trickery, theatrics, emotional manipulation, exploiting loopholes, intimidation and even bribery (of 'expert' witnesses)?
Can you see now why I find this system insane?
If you are saying that the "psychological need" is to bash each others' heads in -- you may be right in some cases.
In other cases (like a well functioning family) the psychological need is to sit down and discuss the issue intelligently, maturely, from every possible angle, and then come to some conclusion at the end.
In our political/social system it is the need to fight it out -- politely ("my learned friend is ..."), but trade as many blows as we can and hope to win.
It is the old underlying conflict between co-operation and competition.
Co-operation is a lot more efficient and a lot less wasteful.
Some choose co-operation, some choose competition, confrontation, violence, fraud and another long list of methods humans have used over history.
In a family you wouldn't put your kids on trial and appoint 2 family members, instructing one to prove the kid guilty, instructing the other to prove hi.mn innocent, regardless what they personally thought.
Some might and I would pity his/her children.
In the "human family" of ours, however, we do exactly that.
I know you will say that society is not a family -- and that is exactlt where the source of our problems lie.