Many of these arguments have been made (and argued) between some of the best and most respected economists and judges over the years. But of course you are just so far above all this people that you can just 'predict a dystopian society' probably without studying any of the related subject at all.
Efficiency is actually a very high goal because in the context of a legal system it means that more people get the service of justice and get it more effectively. Its sort of a meme of modern politics that efficiency can be thrown overboard and as long as everybody can feel good about it we can move on, but that is the wrong attitude to take.
Also, these problem don't vanish if the government does something. Your proposal about ending the war on drugs for example, do you think profit has nothing to do with it continuing. I'm not saying its all about money, but stopping something that consumes billions will be opposed by many people. The same goes for many of these other things, like jailing people and so on.
The economists and judges who look at these things systematically try to understand the intensives faced by different actors in the system and to change the legal system to get a better outcome.
You might not agree with the person in the video, but you would learn something about Law&Economics at least.
> If all of thst is done and we still see a need for greater efficiencies in a much reduced system, then we can talk.
So any conceptual discussion about an ideal system should not be had because the current system is not ideal? Contrary to what you seem to imply the people who are having these arguments don't want to implement a new system tomorrow that changes everything. They are arguing about principles to inform the direction reform should take.