That&#x27;s partly by design, and partly due to skewed incentives.<p>As noted below, the skewed incentives are that prosecutors <i>need</i> to close and get convictions in order to progress. They are graded on how well they can get convictions, not if those were &quot;fair.&quot;<p>However, this is also partly be design. The theory of our judicial system is that each side will do everything (legal) in their power to argue opposing sides. And then the judge&#x2F;jury, after hearing both sides, comes to a logical conclusion. The theory goes that if both sides do their job, each avenue of either guilty or innocent are properly explored and then the decision by the arbiter is the closest to the truth.<p>In reality, though, the prosecutors often have way more leverage and power to argue more persuasively and offer deals than the average defense lawyer. Especially if the defense is from a public defender. And high-end celebrity defense lawyers that cost millions also have a way of overpowering and bringing more resources to bear in the defense. Combined, this means that rarely are both sides actually being argued in a balanced manner, thus skewing which way the arbiter will decide.