I don’t disagree that there’s room for improvement, but I’m hesitant to accept as gospel the misconviction rates we hear about. Japan’s system that you mention, for instance, also boasts a ~99.9% conviction rate [0] and isn’t adversarial in quite the same sense as the US. It seems plausible that, with such powerful norms against acquittal, the justice system may be less than motivated to revisit their judgments regardless of what might come to light later.

Maybe confidence in judgments is a good proxy for quality in judgments, but history seems to offer examples to the contrary.

I worry that we’re quick to assume that all truths are knowable, and it’s just a matter of trying hard to find them out. As amply demonstrated by the endless flow of “true crime” media, sometimes situations are ambiguous, memories unreliable, evidence scant, and reasons mysterious. Sometimes people get away with stuff, sometimes you just have to decide who you believe. Some uncertainty is irreducible: I worry that even a spectacularly well-“fixed” justice system will always have to take decisions on incomplete information.

[0] https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/c05401/order-in-the-c...