And who decides what is "rampant"? Would you really, honestly trust the judgement some random person who decides to go and dish out justice based on his own values? Do you trust him to be always in the right state of mind? Do you trust him to serve society and not his own means?
It's a bit like autocracy vs democracy. Yes, in theory autocracy is more effective and if done right it can be better than democracy because ut cuts down on debate and can silence unsavory voices and opinions. The problem is that it's rarely, if ever, done right because humans are just humans.
No, judges and courts are not infallible either, but at least they're society's own way of dealing with its problems based on rules accepted by the majority of society. Not on the values of some random stranger off the street.
no subject
It's a bit like autocracy vs democracy. Yes, in theory autocracy is more effective and if done right it can be better than democracy because ut cuts down on debate and can silence unsavory voices and opinions. The problem is that it's rarely, if ever, done right because humans are just humans.
No, judges and courts are not infallible either, but at least they're society's own way of dealing with its problems based on rules accepted by the majority of society. Not on the values of some random stranger off the street.