I'm pretty sure he was making the point that, with the current system, none of those things can happen, and that's a good thing, thus your system isn't as shitty as people make it out to be, sometimes.
What he's saying (and this is my interpretation, so he's free to correct me) is that you should be damned glad that you have your current system. It means that if you get put on trial, you get treated fairly, and if you're innocent, there's a good chance you'll be proven such.
I guess, in THEORY, a better justice system would be part of a Deiocracy, where G-d is the center of the government and is capable, able, and willing to make all decisions about everything. If there was a contest as to the truth, you'd have a chat with G-d, who would be immediately and readily accessible, and G-d would tell you what happened and what should be done about it.
Obviously, this would be the ideal. But since God is fictional (once again, opinion, and even if it turns out that <religion X> is correct, God is not currently solving all our problems), it clearly can't work.
Another way you could do it is by torturing suspects until they tell you what you want to know, thus rendering cross-examination unneccesary. You could do away with Habeas Corpus, thus making it unneccesary for a person to be present at their own trial, and do away with the Defense to make the entire process go more smoothly and more easily.
Here, Nev is making the point that such systems used to be fairly common, and in some places I imagine they are still similar, so be thankful that we have those things.
Or you could let ALL justice stay with the police force, and they execute all justice without any relation to their own judgement.
In prewar Japan, the police carried full length
shinais, and could essentially detain you for any reason they deemed fit, then either a) lock you up, or b) beat the shit out of you with the aforementioned bamboo poles. Your justice system prevents that, so be thankful.