Is a judicial trial more reliable and efficient than a coin toss?

Unlike laws of nature, which one cannot invent, social norms are purely made up. A trial is only 50% accurate at best, presuming a binary outcome where one party is completely truthful and the other only lies, which is rarely the case. With more degrees of freedom, this figure is geometrically less. Studies, moreover, have shown that the main predictor for judicial outcomes is not the written law, but judicial bias, based on previous outcomes. Indeed, if written ‘rules’ straightforwardly determined the outcome of judicial trials, then jurists would be out of a job. Lawyers traditionally rely almost exclusively on documentary and anecdotal evidence, which are not material evidence and easy to forge. These are submitted to an uneducated, politically appointed stranger on an armchair to 'judge'. Electronic data is even easier to forge, and easier to process, making technically incompetent lawyers and traditional legal procedures entirely obsolete. Add to this that the legal system was never scientific to start. Like politics and media, it is a domain of creative fiction writing, which has no truth-value and consequently no social value. Indeed, the only valuable information comes from primary sources that can be objectively verified or falsified. As a joke puts it, the way to know a lawyer (or a politician or a journalist) is lying is that their lips are moving. Contrary to the legal fiction that law is the “search for truth” (as Linus Pauling called science) law is neither science in practice nor are most jurists trained in science or logic; nor are they interested, able or paid to find or expose the facts. In fact, most of them are science dropouts who cite an aversion to STEM as the reason for choosing a career in justice, which are the worst reason and people to judge. Lawyers basically sell judgments they cannot guarantee or enforce. The solution to this sham industry is simply to obtain a forensic report, which the judiciary and law enforcement must acknowledge and enforce unless they are a complete failure.

0:11 Evolution of law
6:45 What is law?
11:39 Who are judges?
19:05 Conclusion