A very interesting topic. Thank you. Enhanced safety must be a collaborative activity, while judicial proceedings, by their nature, are adversarial.
Programs likes CHIRPS and ASRS are a good start, but not applicable once it gets to the an accident investigation.
One missing piece of the discussion is the CAA's themselves, outside of their accident investigator roles. Some jurisdictions have independent investigative bodies, separate from the CAA's, as a check on the CAA's role in any given incident. The CAA's are subject to the same risk-costs decisions as the operators, and are subject to political influence, as well.
Industry safety audit processes, both operator and regulator side, should serve as preliminary checks on risk reduction, but often doesn't. The judicial process is a last resort, and normally only after a catastrophic failure of all of the above. It has to serve as the check and balance on the integrity of the safety and oversight systems.
Though the ultimate cause is always going to be "pilot error" or "mechanical failure", pilots, manufacturers, and maintenance already are held accountable. The judicial process allows the other contibutors to the accident chain to be held responsible as well, and often does a better job of apportioning responsibility.
Once the fairness and integrity of the judicial process is tainted, though, all bets ae off.