"The shooting at a police officer with Malice was intended to remove that I shoot towards my front door, and unbenounced to me, there is an LEO on the other side."

I completely understand what you were trying to cover, but that can be written another way. If you are shooting at someone else (a home invader, etc.) and accidentally hit someone else - such as an LEO - then create that specific situation in your law. What I suggest is simply to avoid any emotional or psychological ascertainments as necessary statutory hurdles for felony conviction. Most especially these get abused by the left as "hate" crimes - which are a complete misnomer but are used for political purposes. Here's one particular way you might reword the law: "Discharging a firearm with the result of hitting a law enforcement officer shall be a (felony/misdemeanor). Exceptions may be granted for exigent circumstances such as ricochets or if the accused employed a firearm for self-defense against a non-law enforcement officer." I'm not a lawyer, but this approach seems to me to be dictated by physical circumstances rather than being dependent on emotional/psychological state.

The legal system is indeed "desgined by lawyers and for lawyers" and I am not sure that there is a better way. You would not want to live in a society without lawyers. Trial by combat or trial by ordeal were alternatives to trial by jury. Can we come up with some new system?

I know what you mean, though. I sat on a jury for a University of Michigan Law School mock trial. It was a criminal case. I was in the criminal justice program at Washtenaw Community College at the time; this was an extra credit assignment. The "lawyers" argued inconsequential details as they jockeyed for points and position to win an argument. To me, working as a security guard while enrolled in a policing class, there were many other things to talk about, which no one seemed interested in. So, I get your point.

But to that point "every defense attorney worth his salt" is working for pay, not as public defenders. Anyone who can afford a defense attorney stands a better chance. The public defender is part of the criminal justice system that processes people like objects on a conveyor belt. So, poor people end up in prison because they do not get the best defense, but just what the drive-through window is serving that day. And who is the jury going to believe, kid, you or the police?

Also, courts do not allow lawyers to make broad statements indicting the system, or calling for jury nullification, etc. Citing a million wrongful convictions in other cases would be overruled for relevance to this case here and now.

Here in Austin, we have a DNA backlog going back like six years. And DNA is only used for heinous crimes such as rape and murder. For lesser offenses, lesser evidence is used. Fingerprints are a perfect example of junk science in the courtroom. Fingerprints never met the Daubert Test, and cannot. You mentioned a hair sample found on a policeman's uniform. Hair samples are another example of junk science in the courtroom, like footprints and tire tracks.

The 80,000 wrongfully convicted behind bars today were not murder or rape cases, but lesser crimes such as property crimes or drug trafficking. Often convictions come from plea bargains that "clear the books." They catch one person and convince them to admit to a string of crimes for which they receive a reduced sentences or other trades such as early release, etc. But they are in prison for crimes they did not commit.

In prison, the longer your rap sheet, the higher your status among prisoners. So, if you are going to prison, it is better to be in for a flock than a single sheep.

All of these problems come from bad epistemology and metaphysics. See my comment above. A rational-real (objective) criminal justice system would be based on restoring the victim and holding the perpetrator financially accountable. Fundamental to that is a marketplace of personal protection and property protection that prevents losses in the first place.

There have been too many mistaken convictions. A
man in Virginia served more than 30 years for a rape he never even did.
I am also against professional juries. With the regular civilian jury, you get the point of view of the "man in the street", not some acceptance of
a customary lawyer trick which might not even make sense.

I appreciate the complexity of the problem. As you noted, these predators are not going to go away, and having a felony conviction - even for a victimless crime - pushes you into unlawful channels by default.

As for prisons not working, that, too is well-known and much debated.

"While sociologists in particular had expressed doubts about the efficacy of Correctional treatment, it was Robert Martinson who led the criticism in 1974 with his article ‘What works: Questions and answers about prison reform’, published in the conservative journal The Public Interest. In this article he summarised 231 studies published between 1945 and 1967 and on the basis of his analysis concluded that ‘with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism’. As Smith, Gendreau, and Swartz noted, his pronouncement labelled ‘nothing works’ became an instant cliché and was eagerly embraced by many policy makers and academics, particularly in the United States, where it was used to challenge the role of prisons and rehabilitation in general. This cliché struck a nerve in the conservative social climate of the time, and Martinson’s ‘second thoughts’, which were published in a near retraction of his earlier pronouncement had little impact, received comparatively little attention and certainly failed to effect policy change." -- http://www.hma.co.nz/wp-content/uploa... (My emphasis added.)

Perhaps my greatest problem in criminology in college and at university was having a capital-O Objectivist foundation from which I sought realist-rationalist (i.e., small-o objectivist) facts and theories. Philosophical positivism is a "realist" school that was shot through with intellectual errors. It dominated the 19th century and was the basis for both Herbert Spencer's individualism and Auguste Comte's collectivism. This is a pretty good summary as it applies to criminology:

"The early years of modern American criminology were informed, if not dominated, by the positivist school of criminology. The biological determinism of positivism—at least that found in Lombroso’s work—was eventually forfeited, but the general principles of the positivist criminology paradigm were embraced. These paradigmatic principles structured thinking about crime and, in turn, views on how to control crime. Eventually, these principles became near hegemonic and developed into what we have called a “professional ideology.” That is, every “good criminologist” seemed to accept them.

"This prevailing professional ideology might be seen as comprising five main principles. First and most important, criminologists believed that crime had definite causes that could be unearthed only through systematic scientific study. The emphasis on science is critical because it meant that the entire framework hinged on the assumption that the study of and fight against crime should be evidenced-based and thus constitute a rational way of formulating practice and policy. Second, the punishment or infliction of pain on offenders was held to be, at best, of limited effectiveness in reforming offenders and, at worst, counterproductive. Third, because crime had definite causes, interventions should be targeted—as in medicine—on changing these causes. Fourth, using the correctional system in this way to change offenders was challenging but ultimately the only rational approach to crime control. Fifth, because the causes of crime differ for each offender, interventions should be individualized. Notably, this way of thinking had emerged with force by the first part of the 1900s and helped to usher in, during the Progressive Era, a wave of reforms that created probation, parole, indeterminate sentencing, and the juvenile court—innovations based largely on the ideal of individualized treatment." (Rothman, 1980).
"FROM NOTHING WORKS TO WHAT WORKS: CHANGING PROFESSIONAL IDEOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY by FRANCIS T. CULLEN (University of Cincinnati) and PAUL GENDREAU (University of New Brunswick at Saint John).
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/...

Cullen was the doctoral advisor of my best criminology professor, but as you can see, he denies the value of an evidence-based, individualized response to crime. I endorse it as the best framework.

Well, I would begin after some long prefacing with the assumption that the purpose of criminal justice is to (1) restore the victim to whatever extent possible and to (2) hold the perpetrator responsible for the sum total of all losses and costs.