You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty, which is a perverse argument given the immense cost and general toll a legal defense can impose on a person.

> If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself.

Yes, that is precisely why the system is stacked against the average person being able to fight the State on criminal charges, and it is very out of touch to imply that anyone that the State has convicted presumably deserved it for not putting up an effective defense.

The system is working as intended on you and I hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal prosecution.

> You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty

I can see how one could get this implication because they said "why would you" but that's a common phrase that people use to (I guess literally) call some decision into question. It's not necessarily about saying that they are obviously lying and could be more about wondering why someone would make that choice. The reply made a good case, which they don't seem to be arguing with.