So why bother with minor shoplifting if, bar the death penalty, you can commit some really lucrative crime and receive the same penalty? Fair? Hardly! It's a law best described politely as 'short-sighted' in that someone hasn't bothered to work out its implications.

Perhaps. But is the outcome really in anyone's best interests? Is it cost-effective? This isn't exactly a value-adding business, so you're paying for some unlucky idiot's incarceration instead of healthcare, policing, infrastructure...

It sounds insane to me.

Also, are you sure you know every law on the book? I suspect quite a few people break more laws than they think, they're just never enforced. Until some DA wants to set an example, and throws the book at you - at which point this is more about personal gain (for the DA) than benefit to society, let alone fairness.

Let's put it this way - unless all laws are uniformly and blindly enforced, they're never going to be entirely fair. With so many laws on the book, and with each instance at the whim of very few people (law enforcement) with virtually no checks and balances, you can be absolutely sure it's not fair. If furthermore even the judiciary is explicitly forbidden from using common sense...

...it's about as fair as cancer. Sure, you can be really stupid (or get really screwed), but nothing you do can entirely protect you - and even those taking risks don't always pay a (significant) price. Some people are unfortunately born with genetic or cultural risk-factors that you really can't call fair.

It's not the end of the world, and it's not societies worst problem, but let's not kid ourselves that the justice system really deserves that name.

It seems fair to him.