+1
> I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is ethically primitive.
I don't have data about my own country, but I can tell you about fundamental differences between France and Commonwealth law structures:
- Lying is only a fault in Commonwealth countries. In France, people are allowed to lie for their own defense and the girlfriend/wife too. It changes heaps. The policeman has to prove the crime, because proving that the person has been inconsistent is such and such answers won't lead anywhere. Of course, like in US, helping the police is a positive point at the trial. The "allowed to lie for your own defense" rule seems heaps more ethical to me, because it's so much more aligned with human's behavior.
- In France, you only get convicted for the highest crime and charges don't add up. If you rob a bank, use a gun without license and kill the security guard, you will get convicted for only the worst of those crimes. That also changes everything: Of course in US you use the "sum" system to frame gangsters whose business you didn't succeed to unveil, but it also means that an almost-non-criminal can be thrown for life on a few actions he did to cover a mistake.
- In France, you can plead guilty, but the crime still has to be proven, which is different from the Us[1]. I think pleading guilty is a fundamental flaw: Under the excuse of saving public money, the poorest citizen who can't afford the defense to prove their case would bargain for a crime they didn't commit.
- In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial.
There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them. And, yes, flaws too.
[1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage Sorry for the French, but the English page of wikipedia doesn't say enough.