Genghis
This makes my understanding - yes - narrow.
If you are referring to your experience and understanding of both criminal and civil process, then I agree.
I'm a flying machine "expert".
That is a bold claim.
I think it is very telling that not one of the extremely knowledgeable experts with whom I worked ever made such a claim. They claimed, with justification, to have expertise in
some 'flying machines',
some aspects of aeronautical engineering or, where it was the case,
some aspects of both.
I almost invariably decided whose expert services should be engaged. That said, the best expert with whom I ever worked had been recruited before I became involved in the case. (I was representing BA.) Thereafter, I used him whenever appropriate and possible. I wasn't in the least surprised that lawyers on the opposing side began to use him in their subsequent cases. If he had been prepared to undertake more expert work he would have been engaged much more often.
who knows a bit about some aspects of legal process
Alexander Pope's well-known comment about a little learning comes to mind.
It is still valid, 300 years later.
In that context this thread would benefit from more "I think that you are mistaken, here's why", and less "you don't know what you are talking about ".
There are times when the latter, sometimes expressed more bluntly than on others, is appropriate.
In particular, when people have refused to take more subtle hints.
I agree there is scope for a very valid debate amongst aviators about whether aviation safety is well served/improved by the criminal process. It's being going on intermittently for some years.
Understandably, opinions remain divided - primarily between those who focus on the short term and those concerned about the long term.
It would not, for the reasons you give, be appropriate to have such a debate in this thread.