The inherent flaws of the adversial system

How the prosecution and defense function is very, very simple. It’s called an adversarial system.They both try their best to prove the defendant innocent/guilty and push each other again and again, because if they both do their jobs right, the jury will be able to decide if the defendant is guilty or not very simply. But it requires them to both do their jobs as well as possible. Something that is rarely possible. Because no one ever performs at peak ability. It’s possible to come close, but that’s not enough. The outcome of the trials depend on the performance of the lawyers. Therefore, if the lawyers of either the prosecution or defense are not on form on one of days of their trial and the other side is, this will sway the advantage to that other side. Not because the evidence points in their favor, but because the lawyer’s performances differ. Do you see now? Trials have becomes less about evidence and justice and more about the performance of lawyers. The trial of OJ Simpson is a glaring example of this. The prosecution messed up its’ presentation of the evidence and the defense won simply because of this. Have anybody who doesn’t know anything about this case read the details of this case presented by a non-biased source and that person will likely say that Simpson is guilty. But this wasn’t important; the presentation and the performance of the lawyers were key in this trial. The actual evidence never played a role. This is becoming too much of a trend in society. The adversarial system needs a revamp, because this is not justice. The system requires peak performances from both the prosecution and the defense. But peak performances are incredibly unlikely to happen. Do we want to base a justice system on the hope of an incredibly unlikely happening? Currently, the answer is apparently yes. If we want to have justice a bit more consistently, we have to change this system.