>>770399>>770417just being an edgelord for the sake of it? none of this makes sense to me, from any political perspective.
>the judicial system always fails because […] it can be used to satisfy the blood lust of retardswhat about when it was used to put away richard "the night stalker" ramirez, ted bundy, or any of the other freaks of nature who committed evil acts and were rightfully institutionalized? I do agree that the judicial system can sometimes produce abortions of justice, but just because that is the case doesn't mean we should allow actual perpetrators of crime to go unpunished.
>and because I have to abide by laws I never agreed todon't you think the criminals believe the same exact thing? in fact, is that not what a crime is? it's you willfully making the statement, through your actions, that you do not believe in the functionality of that law, and thus you don't believe you ought to be restricted by it?
>plus everyone who is in prison actually wants to be there on some level>that's why they committed crimes, and that's why they don't try to escape>they crave structure and formalitiesyeah well now you're just saying that everyone who was ever convicted of something is subhuman, and although a great deal of them may very well be, there's no way that every single person who was wrongfully indicted deserves is actually guilty and deserving of punishment. you even go on to admit this yourself with krista pike. I don't know her story so I'm not going to comment on it, but you use her as an example to make the point that
>Y'all are just children who need daddy to spank someoneand to that I can acknowledge that there's a sort of "gawker's economy" built around how punitive justice is doled out, but I don't think the law itself exists to satiate rulings from a kangaroo court of onlookers, at least not most of the time.
<what do you suggest as an alternative>nothingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.