> each side trying to imprison the other,

you're implying that the two sides are morally and legally equivalent, and both are just engaging in retaliatory squabbling. that is a ridiculous implication

one "side" routinely flaunts the law, steals from the public, abuses and ignores the courts, and has a complete disregard for civil rights, legal procedure, and credibility. it uses the DoJ as a personal henchman, stringing up frivolous charges targeted at political enemies.

the other "side" is trying to enforce the law.

▲

ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The thing is, each side will think you're talking about the other side.

I view it differently. To me there's the pro incarceration side and the anti incarceration side. Both parties institutionally are pro prosecution and have failed to reign in abuses.

Both sides have abused the courts. Instead of arguing over which side has abused them worse (I may not even disagree with you on that!) I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse.

	▲	mckn1ght an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. Sounds great in theory but at the end of the day the backstop to bad behavior is force, one avenue of which is incarceration. This is just the paradox of tolerance.