"But sooner or later we need to be willing to review our practices against those used in systems other than the adversarial and westminster models."

Certainly. There are well developed alternative models that could be implemented as I think you typed earlier. The superiority of the inquisitorial approach was demonstrated during the Inquisitions when people volunteered to participate in the Inquisition rather than common law because they knew that they would get a fairer hearing.

But if we continue our current system we should be very cautious about changing tried and tested principles of law. Even though we live in a democracy that favours majority decisions there seems to be a kind of immaturity in our culture that has us approaching things like impulsive children instead of appreciating the benefits of established wisdom.

Take for example the churches. They decided that they would have more people on the seats if they changed things to make it more in line with the general society. Instead it emptied the pews. Centuries of clever thinkers do a better job than a few impulsive and immature innovators.

Another example is a group of agricultural scientists who went to Papua New Guinea and noticed that they dug their furrows on the hills in a direction perpendicular to that which was considered correct by their developing science. The visitors demanded innovation. The locals deferred to the innovation which supposedly reduced erosion. The first time it rained it rained extremely heavily as it did in the region. The water pooled up in the new furrows and huge chunks of soil fell away totally destroying the farms (and the reputation of the visitors). The ancestors of the locals had worked it out with centuries of experience but the innovators thought that something that worked elsewhere would work there instead of stopping to consider the folly of challenging the product of the pooling of centuries of wisdom without extreme caution.

CONTINUED

I could go on but there is a need to respect centuries of thinking and not approach serious issues in an immature manner even if my recommended approach seems to be becoming counter cultural. What more needs to be stuffed up before people realize that the beginning of modern technology wasn't the beginning of human reason?

I also note that criminal lawyers seem to get very concerned about foolish impulsiveness relating to the legal system and civil rights only when it can make things harder for them. The foundations of the criminal legal system are continually eroded in Traffic Law and knocking off a principle of venerable antiquity becomes a habit for legislators who then simply continue their habit. Just look at the erosion of the Woolmington rule by the acceptance of infringement notices and strict liability. Such an unsound and unfair approach to law can only be expected to lead to further problems. If criminal lawyers are fair dinkum about their concerns they need to wake up and campaign against the thin edge of the wedge. Instead they whinge citing the interest of the community when their working conditions look like becoming harder but it is probably too late to stem the tide and their objections don't look credible.