CargoOne;
"Twisted" is an interesting adjective to apply to a system in which the resulting success in terms of safety levels is nothing short of spectacular when compared with how other professions handle events, untoward outcomes, accidents and fatalities.
The main comparison is the medical profession which, seeing this very success in terms of preventing accidents and fatalities, is adopting aviation's methods of prevention through appropriate monitoring, data-collecting and preventative investigation.
As has already been discussed, shipping, rail, public transport and even the automobile industry is following aviation's long history of dealing with these issues directly and successfully, and not, as you claim, "hiding evidence and escaping prosecution".
This doesn't mean that aviation's approach to these issues is without fault or immune to the influence or the outright pressures of special interests; it is a human activity, after all.
Take a look at the evidence, not what is merely written or said. The success of this approach to safety is not due to mere views and opinions shared by pilots. This success is due purely to our industry's willingness to look at the nasty bits and do something about them before they kill or cost.
Would that such an enlightened attitude were resident in other professions and industries.
While litigation can, in the short term, (and sometimes even does) lead to change, it also engenders a strong culture of silence both corporately and professionally. That quickly leads to the very activities of hiding evidence which you complain aviation is trying to accomplish through its processes of protecting safety data. By comparison to a rational approach to accident investigation and prevention, is this unenlightened litigious approach not the very definition of "twisted"?
There is no perfect system, nor is there a system invented which always avoids unfairness or even abuse.
However, if you prefer a system whether transportation-related or healthcare related, etc, which runs on the principle of "tombstone safety" and which characteristically "punishes the perpetrators" before knowing why, and which prefers discovery and prosecution to learning, you would do well to avoid using such a system.
PJ2