That reminds me of itself a highly dysfunctional old system of private prosecutors. Especially with double jeopardy given that not having it turns it to a clear way to harass anyone. One obvious flaw is that trivially the best defense strategy isn't to hire a good defense attorney - it is to hire the absolutely worst prosecutor - against yourself.
Infamously prosecutors with conflicts of interest - often seen in cases of outrage over police misconduct. The prosecutors proceed to obviously present the worst possible case in what is an /unopposed/ hearing for a crime. There is a reason why the saying is 'they could indict a ham sandwich' - the standard is low enough that they just need to be able to present a very initial case to begin the process of proving guilt officially.
That sounds somewhat naive, but on the other hand it also might help in getting all these unenforced, legacy laws of the book that result in anyone at all times being with one foot in prison if someone decided to enforce every law.
I agree with it sounding naïve. The thing is, we’ve tried a lot more things that attempt to pragmatic and reasonable with limited success: innocent people get hurt, while bad actors weasel out. I know the standard is supposed to be to allow a hundred guilty people go free rather than allow one innocent person be imprisoned, but given how many people are in prison, there might be more innocent people in there than we’d like to admit.
That would end up using money against law enforcement or prosecution as a proxy for lack of fairness/effectiveness, and we already know that money is a bad proxy for morality. That’s why this law has prison time.
If the blockchain could send people to prison, then we’d probably have other problems.
