Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessarily better if the selection is made politically. That moves the needle from "at least something got done" to "law is just a tool of oppression".
Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessarily better if the selection is made politically. That moves the needle from "at least something got done" to "law is just a tool of oppression".
when in actuality the choice is between "both sides steal" or "one side steals"
and allowing both sides to steal is in no way better
---
the main way desired "both sides get caught" state becomes a thing is after "one side" splits in two - still being close in horizontal connections to stabilize, but with developed instruments for either half to guard against the other
crying about oppression only leaves you stuck in "everyone steals" state
Or, you do what the democratic party in the US has been afraid to do: Rip the bandaid off, accusations of weaponization of the DOJ be damned. The parent's hypothetical situation is precisely what is happening in the US right now where Garland failed to prosecute, and the entire democratic party was far too afraid of appearing to weaponize the justice system meanwhile the opposition has no qualms about doing so. Yes, the public will view it as entirely partisan but there's no other path forward.
But if you just do nothing at all, eventually the social contract breaks. The cost of the corruption becomes too high and the state fails, or you get a forced regime change.
The day this happens is the day that 90% (or more) of our "leaders" find themselves suddenly in prison.