I have no idea why you were downvoted (and physically couldn&#x27;t downvote you as a direct reply, but anyway). I think I agree that Al Capone was nominally punished for a crime that wasn&#x27;t one of the crimes he really ought to be punished for (although it was in fact also a crime). But on the other hand, I&#x27;m not sure that I think a seven-year sentence would have really been sufficient for the fullness of his crimes.<p>Perhaps more importantly, if Wikipedia&#x27;s account is to be believed, he lost the tax evasion case because he had bad lawyers: first, one who admitted to the facts of the crime, and second, an initial defense team who didn&#x27;t raise objections they could have raised. So I don&#x27;t think the Capone example contradicts my claims in the end. We need defense lawyers for actual, unquestionable criminals <i>because</i> they have the singular goal of making sure people aren&#x27;t unfairly or vindictively prosecuted. We understand that having just a prosecutor and a judge risks unjust outcomes. So it&#x27;s unsurprising that wasn&#x27;t the passive-voice &quot;approach taken&quot; with him: a trial without good defense is expected not to lead to a just approach, just as much as a trial without good prosecution or a good judge.<p>At best it&#x27;s not clear what your point is or what position you&#x27;re espousing, which I think is a mostly valid reason for downvote-and-move-on. For instance, it&#x27;s not clear whether you think the prosecution of Capone was just or unjust.