> As for trust, what's wrong with writing the laws to assume less trust of institutions?
No law that has any utility can be written in a way where you can assume you don't trust the institution enforcing it. It's like writing an OS kernel assuming you can't trust ring 0 code.
That's a poor analogy. We implement trading systems without fundamental trust all the time. Letters of credit, escrow, etc. enable us to engage in commerce without forming trust relationships. Why should a legal system ask for, or deserve, more trust than a trade counterparty?
More concretely, why shouldn't judges, prosecutors, and police be bonded?
Those systems don't eliminate the need to trust, they shift trust from trade counter parties to the government that enforces the relevant agreements. The framework would crumble if e.g. we didn't trust the courts to hold escrow agents to strict fiduciary duties.
In the real world, fiduciary trust isn't trust in government, it's trust in ratings agencies. Recourse to the courts won't matter if the bank or insurer is a fraud and the money is gone.
The point is, however: There is no reason not to insist on the same guarantees for government offices. There is nothing magical about trust in government or of fallible people working for government. It can be bonded, insured, and rated like any other transaction where significant liabilities may need to be covered.
No law that has any utility can be written in a way where you can assume you don't trust the institution enforcing it. It's like writing an OS kernel assuming you can't trust ring 0 code.