the US legal system is a religious institution run by profiteering gluttons--not a honest non-for-profit public service run by philanthropists--and like the religions of yore it has amassed a very large and strong army to ensure it maintains in it's position of power. though there are undoubtedly some honest 'peacekeepers' within our national police force, it is a police force... not a peacekeeping service. the police force is just a finger on the hand of justice, and it is the police forces' task to aid in the enforcement of laws and to help ensure those who threaten the sanctity of their religion are penalized, not to protect people from those who wish to harm others (though that happens too).
the officers of our police forces work in close concert with those more closely intertwined with the judicial system to see to this. they regularly ensure that prosecutors are equipped with the right information and reports to guarantee a conviction, despite any factuality of the accusations against those charged with violations of law. this can be evidenced by the fact that almost all convictions result from guilty pleas, and most of those are from plea bargains... where a prosecutor oversells their case and threatens horrifically harsh treatment should the defendant not plea guilty; and now, not later (in order to get the conviction before the defendant can even attempt to prepare a defense, or even understand what is happening).
in return, a conviction--even one underhandedly coerced during plea bargaining--guarantees the arresting officer faces no risk of any retribution for lying in reports or arresting innocent people without due diligence, or probable cause. so, if they make an arrest, it's in their best interest to do whatever they must to help the prosecutor obtain a conviction. it is not in their best interest to remain honest, submit reports with only absolutely truthful statements, or to ever omit fault if they errored in any way, shape, or form (this is also true of various other State/Gov positions: social workers, accountants, basically anyone whose position is assessed by documented results they are responsible for producing, rather then by polling those whom they interact with or by monitoring their effectiveness via a disconnected third party/parties).
as a citizen, unless exceptionally wealthy, once you have been handcuffed or charged with a crime you might as well assume you'll be mistreated by the system and eventually convicted; whether you are guilty of the crime accused or not. after all, those responsible for acquiring those convictions are almost always voted into their positions, and they can lose their jobs if they don't meet their conviction quotas. fairness within the judicial system is neither openly monitored, nor used as a gauge to determine who deserves their position... be they judge, prosecutor, or police officer. otherwise, only voluminous public outcry or the reasonable suspicion of a severe crime can guarantee the exposure of those individuals guilty of the crimes described here.
it's rather ironic that the very people most effected by the unfairness and dishonesty that occurs within our justice system are the same people either intentionally excluded from having any say in how it works, or are simply less likely to participate in deciding because of their social position in life.
the system is designed, though probably not intentionally during it's inception, to encourage abuses to occur and to protect those who act abusively within the system.
this all being true, and being well known for well over 30 years, it begs to be asked: how does the occupy movement suggest the situation--concerning the prominence of corruption within our society--be addressed? similar to an apology not being appropriate without a change in behavior to help assure the offense doesn't reoccur, pointing out a problem is pretty pointless if a solution is not offered alongside it.
naturally, the solutions become as evident as the problems as soon as those interested begin to look for them rather than focusing on whining about the problems.
the only problem i'm personally still unsure how to address is the problem of not having any of the money necessary to implement the solutions. i only have 400 dollars to my name at the moment, and in today's society none of our overall problems can be solved without some substantial cash being thrown at them. should i win the lottery tomorrow, i would be happy to donate the total amount to this one cause. pity i don't gamble.