Sadly, our criminal justice system (heck, every criminal justice system in the free world, as far as I know) is not about establishing truth or determining guilt or innocence. It is a sport. Every trial is a game, and both sides play to win. Defense lawyers make their names and their money not by defending the innocent, but by getting their clients off with almost total disregard for the facts. DAs' careers are made not by protecting the public and insuring that justice is served, but by having the highest conviction rate possible.
I'm not claiming I have a better way all worked out in my head, but there has to be something better than what we've got.
Exactly so! In fact, I have found fault with both the prosecution and the defense side of the law.
For instance, in Oklahoma City, we had a D.A. who had an incredible run of wins. In fact, it was so incredible, that it turns out to have been an issue of manufacturing the evidence to suit the DA's theory. Some 15-20 people were finally released when DNA evidence proved that they did not--could not--commit the crimes.
Some had spent as long as 17 years in prison, and of those, most had done hard time because they would neither confess nor repent the crimes they didn't commit in the first place. (In this state, you get certain perks if you confess and repent.) Even worse, there are rumors that there were more who were wrongly put to death--but they refused to comment on that.
Then there's the other side of this: the lawyers who, in the course of doing their duty, twist the facts around and sweet-talk a jury into letting a guilty person go.
Still, I don't know of an alternative, workable system. Trial by media isn't much of an alternative; neither, I suppose, is trial by Freepers.