Public sentiment is deeply divided regarding the Supreme Court's role in criminal justice reform, with strong support for modernization and reforms to accountability, alongside significant disappointment over perceived corruption and a disconnect from public accountability. Many express urgency for substantive action rather than ongoing discussions.

Supreme Court

Political Leaders

&gt;Things like private prisons, mandatory minimums, and the way we criminalize poverty and mental illness aren’t just little things that slipped through the cracks

Private prisons represent about 8% of the prison population.  They are not the major factor that people who quote them want to make them out to be.  Some form of mandatory minimum sentencing exists in most penal codes.  At one point they were particularly high for certain drug offenses which made them something of a cause célèbre but they are not unto themselves bizarre tools of oppression.  

As far as "criminalizing poverty and mental illness" I'm not really sure what specifically you mean.  Both can be motives for crime and one could change the laws to deal with offenders who commit crimes for those reasons but at the end of the day the reason this doesn't happen is not because "the system" is some uniquely evil thing, it's because by and large that's what the people want.  They want retribution and they want criminals punished and they aren't particularly sympathetic to what led them to be criminals.  Change people's minds about that and "the system" will likely change along with it, but until people actually want that kind of change en masse it's not going to happen, so you're kind of putting the cart in front of the horse here.

Roadshell

I agree that there are pretty serious issues here, but a lot of them aren't as easy to address as you'd hope, and there's a Chesterton's fence element here. It's easy to see the downsides of the system and think it should be thrown out, but the upsides are often out of sight out of mind when, say, you're *not* getting mugged by a guy who's in jail awaiting trial for his last mugging.

I'm totally in favor of a massive overhaul, but I think a lot of the problems would end up back in the new system because they're solving more severe problems.

NaturalCarob5611

But I don't want those things. I don't want a system "built on the stance of offering aid." I think that would be terribly unjust, as well as a bad outcome. I think mandatory minimum sentences are too lenient. I *want* a system that punishes and controls. Those are good things.

HadeanBlands

I’m a libertarian and I’d be all ears for serious policy proposals.  

Abolish private prisons. I’d be on board for that. But to my knowledge they don’t make up a large fraction of the prison population but a start is a start. 

Abolish victimless crimes. There’s not much meat here to hang out hats on. But I generally think we have way too many criminal laws so let’s try to focus on a few here. I’m open to abolishing drug laws but, experience has shown us, especially with the rise of opiates that we have to have our eyes open. I believe adults should be allowed to do as they wish. But, our cities cannot be allowed to be littered with humans who cannot seem to handle their drugs like adults. I would not accept drunks stumbling around outside all day on the streets loitering so I won’t accept it with drug users either.

But I am not willing to listen to “tear it down” without concrete alternatives given that are grounded in reality and take into account what is possible. This is real life not a crappy John Lennon song.

DangerousAnalysis967

There's serious issues but I doubt even reddit would agree on revoking much of this. For example, people may be on board for no mandatory minimums until another Brock gets let off for rape 

Ok-Temporary-8243

I disagree that the system was built on control and profit. It was built on the idea of removing centralized and corrupt criminal justice by allowing you to be judged by your peers. It was revolutionary, and copied all over the world. And it works really well, it’s very very rare for people to go to jail for crimes they didn’t commit. Where we need reform is in making laws so that we aren’t throwing people in jail for victimless crimes like drugs or poverty related crimes, and that’s able to be achieved through reform. 

Also private prisons weren’t established until the 80s, and since they’ve been largely exposed for how corrupt they are in the past few years, their use and numbers are declining. It is totally reasonable to get rid of private prisons without tearing the system down.

New_General3939

[deleted]

Community based crisis response teams? What happens when they have to respond to armed burglary? Violent domestic assault? Carjackings? What is your solution for violent crime? You ever dealt with mentally ill individuals? I agree with that though, they need to reopen mental institutions focused on care and health, but unfortunately the workers who work with these individuals don’t come out of their line of work unscathed. You sound like someone who lives a privileged life or has no idea what kind of people exist in this world. None of your reforms will work, there needs to be a balance, not upright removal.

OhSix31

&gt;private prisons

Only 5% of incarcerated Americans are in private prisons. About half of the states don’t have any private prisons. I don’t think private prisons is a reason to start from scratch as opposed to reform.

&gt;mandatory minimums

While they can sometimes force someone to be incarcerated for longer than they deserve, they can also be important to stop people from getting off with just a slap on the wrist if the judge isn’t being impartial. I feel like this could just use some reform and be fine, like ensuring access to parole and making sure mandatory minimums aren’t too high.

&gt; criminalize poverty and mental illness

This isn’t on the justice system. The justice system can’t just let being poor or mentally ill be an excuse for committing crimes/harming other people.

That’s on other sectors to work on poverty and mental illness, as well as the legal system to not criminalize victimless crimes like feeding the homeless. But the justice system should remain the same here. The law should be enforced equally for everyone.

&gt; fully funding mental health care, housing, education

These are not replacements for the justice system, but rather additions. They are other systems that are important and need reform to help fix our incarceration crisis, but we can’t just stop enforcing laws even if we have perfect healthcare housing and education. 

&gt; These ideas already exist, are being tested, and they WORK

Why do we need to dismantle the current system if they are already working under the current system when implemented?

Tommyblockhead20

Mandatory minimums are important. Speaking as a former prosecutor, the sheer number of judges That takes sentencing recommendations almost exclusively from victims incentivizes victim coercion and intimidation by defendants. To be clear this isn't saying that every crime necessarily needs a mandatory minimum, or even the mandatory minimums universally have to be high, but it is to say that mandatory and maximum sentencing guidelines are important in ensuring victim safety. In the jurisdiction where I worked  One of the big reasons we elected to charge battery upon a dating partner, rather than another domestic charge was that Even though the maximum penalty was lower, we saw an almost 40% drop in complaints related to victim intimidation.

Lafitte1812

Can you give any assurances that what replaces the current system will be any better? That's the danger of tearing down what already exists. You might get something better, but you might get something horrible.

Dry-Tough-3099

I agree with reform but I do fully support that the punishment should be harsher than the crime. That’s what makes it a deterrent. On the other end though I think fining people that are already low to no income is wrong and fines should scale up with tax bracket. Mandatory minimums exist when some is charged not when someone is a suspect or even indicted. 

Could you edit your post and clarify about the part on criminalizing mental illness? We do have higher reported rates of depression, ptsd, bpd, ext… however the most significant increases relate to self reported cases. While I think there are changes needed in health care and education that can alleviate/mitigate some of the other outcomes. One does have to acknowledge the reality that there are bad people that will do harm to others or the property of others and they should be punished to a degree to discourage it.

DisgruntledWarrior

How?

How do you completely dismantle federal prisons and rely on the honor system for the people who *do belong*  there? Ask the human traffickers and terrorists "please come back in 1-2 years when the new prison is finished"?

The devil is in the details. How do you dismantle it without letting the real monsters out?

Im all for dropping all charges for non violent drug based crimes for the record, Im not arguing we shouldnt do anything

flairsupply

People often forget that the primary purpose of a criminal justice system is not rehabilitation, public safety, or labor but justice. Being punished for crimes is the point.

EverestMaher

I won't defend the current U.S. criminal justice system and I don't have the answers for how to reform it, but the problem with your view is that you're reversing the causality. The criminal justice system wasn't built to be exploitive; rather, it's the place where exploited people end up. 


In fact, The current system wasn't built or designed, it developed over time from well-meaning attempts to address the social issues you mention and from less well-meaning attempts to just make problems go away. The ability of some people to make a profit from the system is not about intent, it's about opportunism. 


Take private prisons. There are historical instances of private prisons here and there, and there's the convict leasing system that developed in the south, which is a whole other issue. But private prisons as we know them first appeared in the 1980s; that's after the prison population started growing. Here's a fun fact: one of the biggest political lobbies for the three strikes laws in California was the prison guards union. There was no plan to use the criminal justice system to profit, rather the criminal justice system metastisized as it was called on to solve problems like poverty and mental health that weren't being adequately addressed in other ways. 


Here's an alternate interpretation of the timeline. The U.S. economic model through the first half of the 20th c. was built on rapid industrialization and well-paying manufacturing jobs that gave Americans high purchasing power that further fueled economic growth. This model worked very well, especially after WW2 when America had half the world's productive capacity, but as other countries caught up, U.S. competitive advantage fell. There was still lots of things being produced and lots of money being made but the labor market switched towards high-skilled manufacturing and services, both high-skilled and low-skilled. Some people did very well, especially those who were educated and/or willing to move to where the opportunity was. But a lot of people, especially those in marginalized communities, were stuck in economically stagnant places. 


People in the 1960s and '70s saw the problem and did try to address it with increased social services; this was the Great Society era. Problem was social services don't address the fundamental problem. And so, lack of opportunity and the proliferation of drugs started to bring the crime rates up. At some point middle class voters could fed up and started electing "tough on crime" politicians and those politicians had no answers other than ramping up prosecutions and incarceration. 


In some places the prison economy replaced the factory economy. But not because someone planned it that way. Because the factory economy moved away and nothing else came in it's place. 


Tldr: Problems with the criminal justice system are downstream of larger social and economic issues. There's no meaningful way to reform the criminal justice system without first addressing the other issues. The best we can do is find areas where reform is possible and try to save as many people as we can from getting caught up in a shitty system. 

JRLtheWriter

It’s not the “criminal Justice system” preventing “community based crisis response teams” it is that a majority of people don’t want that, or at least cannot agree on a version they want. If enough people in a city/state were to support it and base their vote around politicians who support it then these policies can be implemented alongside the current system. It is lack of support that’s stopping you not some “system”

HeWhoShitsWithPhone

Drug use and gambling are not victimless crimes 

Recent_Echo_5274

Dismantling the prison industrial complex is as realistic as dismantling capitalism in the United States.

arrogant_ambassador

Due Process is the criminal justice system's purpose. Ours does a remarkably good job of serving that purpose because we have the right to hearings and demand jury trials. In criminal cases, every person is guaranteed the right to counsel, this is a major part of upholding the guarantee to due process. Every person in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the right to examine the evidence against them, other important features that many take for granted. Our system is made of people, and sometimes people are mistaken in the administration of justice, but our system even takes this into account, allowing for appeal.

Swimming_in_paradise

The West Coast literally just went through this little pilot program you're suggesting of limiting/ending cash bail, lowering the threshold before shoplifting and drug crimes become a felony, defunding the police, and making local authorities unable to enforce anti-vagrancy laws. 

What happened again? It made those places unliveable. Some highlights: Oakland mayor recalled, LA County elected a republican DA, Proposition 36 passed by a margin over 2:1 after an almost 20-point spread the other way just 10 years earlier. There was a clear cause and effect.

Bootmacher

People make choices, including the choices to commit crimes.  The criminal justice system's intent is to address acts by investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those acts.

The issue with your model is that it imposes increasing demands on the general public to provide greater and more expansive giveaways.

Mandatory minimums are a check and balance on judicial discretion.  While there may be a place for some reform, there also needs to be boundaries on the ability of judges to undersentence.

ZoomZoomDiva

Funnily enough, there was a topic the other day on Confession, a community based crisis response aimed at helping those who wish to right wrongs while not involving the harsh criminal justice system. The general response was that it needs to be done by the state so that we can involve the criminal justice system. 


People don't like it if it means someone might go without punishment, regardless of the outcome. 

PaxNova

Please describe what a “Community Based crisis response team” is and what it would do.

SlapfuckMcGee

There is nothing you can't do via "reform" that you can do via "dismantle and replace".

"Dismantle and replace" is a type of reform - quite literally reforming the same concept (law enforcement).

You're just arguing for a more extreme reform in a way that makes it seem like it's something other than reform. It's still a reform. 

&gt;You can’t fix something that was never built to serve everyone in the first place.

And why not? This isn't a truism.

It's entirely possible to dig through, find the parts that aren't working for "everyone"\*, and change them so that they are.

Don't like mandatory minimums and think they disproportionately affect the poor? Get rid of them.

Don't like private prisons? Prohibit their use.

Want to create institutions for the mentally unwell that they can go to get help in lieu of prison? Go ahead and do that.

Hell, you can go further than that and just give an automatic defense to those who have mental illnesses such that they can't be forcefully placed in custody at all? Go right ahead.

\*This is more of a practical argument, but it is *impossible* to make a system that works for everyone in practice. People all want different things from these systems and have different expectations that are even sometimes mutually exclusive. 

Arbitrary-ish example

The homeless may want to be entirely left alone by the government (not forced to move, not arrested), but they guy who owns the house who can't get out of his driveway because there's a homeless camp at the end of it, or walk out of his front door without having to step over some dude sleeping on his porch would probably want *at a minimum* for them to be able to be forced away and arrested if they refuse.

This can be an issue even in a situation where, say, the government were to provide no-cost housing for the homeless. Some percentage will outright refuse.

tizuby

**Any country’s** law enforcement, criminal justice, and incarceration system is designed to do one thing ONLY. 

Identify those criminal perpetrators, whose unlawful actions endanger and harm society, … investigate, apprehend &amp; detain them until trial, and if convicted incarcerate them as per the sentencing mentioned according to the law(s) writ. 

The ONE thing it’s supposed to do, is remove those individuals from society for a set period of time until a parole board determines they are no longer a threat to society.. in which case they are released, and allowed to rejoin society. 

The period may be for 18 months, 4 years, 15+ years, or longer. But think of it kinda like ‘quarantining the criminals’ **AWAY FROM** the rest of law-abiding, tax-paying, contributors of society. 

(This service DOES serve society, by removing the bad apples. In fact, it’s one of the most basic services TAXPAYERS expect their government provides.)

These examples have dual purpose to law-abiding society too : This is what happens to those who found guilty of committing criminal acts. Prison is where you will go. It serves as a deterrent.

canned_spaghetti85

Criminal justice  SHOULD be based on punishment. DO something bad...get punished. The US also doesnt criminalize poverty or mental illness. It criminalizes actions...plenty of poor people or mental people with no criminal record.

Prison also protects society at large from criminals. Thats what you need it for. In terms of issues with on violent victimless crimes...pretty easy to simply allow gambling or recreational drug use. If loitering/panhandling have victims is debatable in terms the effects of people having to deal with them but still a pretty easy to reform.

Your view of it needs to be replaced is because you want a system that simply gives people handouts because you see criminals as a sort of victim and and to capitulate to the idea that if people arent given handouts they will choose crime.

JSmith666

I think it's a fantasy that you're ever going to get some kind of perfect system that perfectly takes care of everyone's needs, where crime can somehow be eliminated by dealing with supposed "root causes," etc.  I'll give you an example - remember the case of Daniel Penny, who killed Jordan Neely on the NYC subway?

The liberal refrain was "this should have been dealt with as a housing and mental health issue, the problem was the system failed."  However, guess what, Jordan Neely WAS given free housing.  He willfully left it after a very short time.  We only have so much we can do.  There isn't some silver bullet cure for "mental illness" or violent tendencies.

I think jail should only be for SA or violence. The fact that it’s mostly used for drug related charges is more dysfunctional than it is righteous.

The opposite of reform is what happens when you’re living in jail. Nothing about it promotes fostering a better relationship to society or personal well-being.

Being locked up for selling drugs doesn’t change the elephant in the room that many of these people living in cells simply can’t feed their families/others they are responsible for with a $9/hr paycheck from Goodwill, if they find themselves in that situation. Have you ever looked for a job with a felony? The system doesn’t give them a way out. And we’re punishing them way harder than most child predators.
The war on drugs and mandatory minimums targeted the same generation that was born in a segregated U.S. You can imagine there might not have been as many jobs available to them and that would be a pretty big handicap as far as building generational wealth goes. It’s a racist law.

deadtexdemon

No. The system is fine. The criminal justice system requires proof beyond shadow of doubt for criminal offenses. Criminals should be punished and the chance to reform after serving a criminal sentence is earned. It’s not an entitlement and being a criminal does have a negative connotation that makes it harder. That is just part of living in a society that has laws. Yeah we can do better with rehabilitation but overall the system is fine

Unlucky241

\&gt;I believe in reduction of mandatory minimums for NON VIOLENT, VICTIMLESS CRIMES. (Recreational drug use, panhandling, loitering, gambling, etc)

I'm sorry, OP, but are there mandatory minimums for panhandling and loitering? I can see there potentially being mandatory minimums for gambling, but only for the house that's taking the rake, and of course there are mandatory minimums for drugs.

Clausewitz1996

Have you ever had the pleasure of dealing with the justice system of a major liberal city? I'll assume by this post the answer is no. The reality is so different from what you're imagining that depending on how you interacted with it (charged with a crime vs being the victim of a crime) you would literally be posting here saying the entire system needs to be dismantled and made stricter. Even if you were charged with a crime you'd be shocked by the leniency, diversion programs and support services being offered.

I'm not even sure what dismantled over reformed actually means or how any of the things you propose are impossible to achieve through reforms. Dismantled also implies a certain amount of destruction and collateral harm.

AidenFested

You make a good point. 

Non-violent, victimless crimes, should be dealt with in a different manner.

You included a few, but also tax evasion is another non-violent victimless crime. Just like most of the white collar crimes.

Simply not telling somebody how much money you make, which is your own business, should not be a criminal offense

Analyst-Effective

The system is easily fixed

Just let the cops do their jobs. Instead of allowing criminals to take over parts of Seattle, San Francisco, L.A.

The cops there would love to go into those places and clean up the mess. But the hippies there would rather protect drug dealers than offer aid to the homeless people who need a fresh start.

SpendAccomplished819

Dismantling is impossible. It just is. Hate or love DOGE, people like Vivek and Elon created/joined it to dismantle smaller systems and replace them with something different/better/worse. Problem is half the country doesn’t like them. Another large percentage doesn’t trust them. And the powers in charge will use that to stop it in its tracks. Same thing would happen to whichever party decided to dismantle the justice system. Bi-partisanship would never happen on this.

Wakattack00

1. Most prisons are not private prisons owned operated or otherwise.

2. Minimums is not inherently bad and can be easily adjusted through reform if deemed necessary.

3. Nothing prevents utilizing current system to do what you want.

soldiergeneal

All the things you whine about are relatively minor and infrequent, or are simply non issues.

On the whole, the current criminal justice system does what it needs to do. Anything else should supplement it, not replace it.

Speedy89t

I agree that the American justice system has serious, even foundational flaws—many rooted in racism, classism, and profit motives. You’re absolutely right that private prisons, the criminalization of poverty, and the punitive model of justice are not glitches—they’re features of how the system evolved. But here’s where I challenge your view: dismantling and replacing the entire system is not only unrealistic—it could actually result in outcomes far worse than flawed reform.

First, dismantling assumes we can start from scratch without chaos. But justice systems are deeply embedded into every level of governance—federal, state, municipal. Who dismantles it? Who oversees the transition? What protects communities from legal limbo in the meantime? The abolition of one system doesn’t guarantee the creation of a better one—it just creates a vacuum, and history shows those are often filled by power grabs, not justice.

Second, not all of the current system is broken. For example, due process, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, and legal protections in the Bill of Rights are critical features worth preserving. These are protections people around the world fight for. Throwing out the whole system risks tossing out those safeguards, too.

Third, “reform doesn’t work” is only true if we define reform as shallow, surface-level changes like body cams. But structural reforms do exist and have succeeded in some areas: drug court diversion programs, bail reform, restorative justice models, ending cash bail in certain jurisdictions, and decarceration policies have all shown measurable progress. The problem isn’t that reform is inherently ineffective—it’s that it hasn’t been pursued seriously or at scale.

Finally, building mental health infrastructure, housing, and community-based responses (which I fully support) doesn’t require dismantling the justice system—it requires redirecting funding and political will, both of which can happen under a reform framework. You can create an alternative without burning down the entire structure.

In short, you’re absolutely right that the current system is unjust in many ways. But full dismantling is a risky, high-stakes approach with no guarantee of something better. Deep, radical reform—with a focus on community-based alternatives and a shrinking of the carceral state—is not only more feasible, it’s more likely to last and protect people in the long run.

tastefulmalesideboob

Anyone who even mentions private prisons is a person who knows nothing about the criminal justice system.


You are talking about a tiny fraction of criminals. It absolutely is not a driver of anything.

CnC-223

The stuff you want exists in cities like Seattle and San Francisco.  I suggest you move to one of these places to experience how well it works.

Purple-Journalist610

Given the massive crime wave we’ve experienced, I’d like to see much longer sentences, and many more prisons built. Crime and Punishment.

Boring_Clothes5233

It's 2025, we can fully explore the nearby Cosmos, and yet we can't make sure police body cams stay on throughout their shift. Wild

JCReed97

Do you believe in the deterrent effect? That expected consequences or punishment deters crime by influencing decision-making? 

The social justice lens willingly omits this basic aspect of the human nature, and function of justice system.

ImRightImRight

The system is fine, it’s the people who are ruining it, Politicalized Judges, prosecutors too eager to charge someone,

MaxwellSmart07

Before suggesting the dismantling and replacing of the criminal justice system, have you ever visited a prison?

thebossmin

I work in a state prison and I agree with you 100%. It can't be reformed and is a scam.

RedSunCinema

Our entire government needs a redo, but unfortunately, I'm too old for this shit..

LivingHighAndWise

Yes, end private prisons.

However, draconian sentencing reduces crime.

CulturalScheme9923

It’s a legal system, not a justice system

No-Perspective3453

Aslong as the criminal is offf the street.

Soggy_Associate_5556

sal696969

badlyagingmillenial

IGotScammed5545

What is shocking is that he openly boasts about it. How can anyone trust the judgements henceforth..

UncouthVillageYouth

Someone got killed by a driver who shouldn't have been driving. The driver has escaped to America. An accomplice who helped cover up the crime is now free in India. 

Vedam didn't help the person who died. Perhaps because they were not brahmin. But according to this judge Vedam helped the murderer get away.

vik_123

fun fact bjp do bench hunting in tn to get their case alloted to them.

  
like filing case in holiday when limited judje working he will get it

Ioosubuschange

maximuz

amar_smash

careless_quote101

Sorry to say but if this post got removed I will be not shocked

harmbala

https://preview.redd.it/4ww2rlezp7ff1.jpeg?width=1792&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=5984d4f3a6aeaa54625e8fb2d270eeea018626a0

Iamyourfather_12

Medai le ipdi pesitu apram 'yen ellarum brahmanaale eh kora sollinde iruka' nu vera. Yen da, ipdi pesina kora dhaan da solluvanga.

gtm26

Current-March-2771

Source from Dinamalar

https://youtu.be/iDabDmaScRQ

ImportanceShoddy10

Ivan oru BJP kai kooli than, ithula Hindu Munnani la irukaan, BJP la irunthu vara case la ivan than theerpu valangitu irukaan, ivan iruka vara Tamil Nadu nalla vilangum. Ithuku apparam ivana lam remove pannama vachutu iruntha enna panna.

Mousyr1

Practical-Lychee-790

Adang gow....
So they use justice for their own interest rather than justice.

A-Hog-rider

Some people live righ in the holes of judicial system.. 
Not to blame vedas..

Old_Pomegranate_6272

Ithelam nanga ashoka kalathuku munadi irunthey panitu varom... Poviya

![gif](giphy|3NXmRUweROPqcxOD72)

triple_raw

Comfortable_Buddy806

We non brahmins are never safe in this country as long as these mfs occupy judiciary. People lament a lot about dynasty politics, every 5 years they come to public voting but here due to social capital &amp; privilege they occupy a constitutional post. How will they be unbiased if the case is between a brahmin &amp; non brahmin. 

This guy should be impeached.

Which_Ad_1819

ennaku puriyala, eduku itha perumai ya sollitu irukan? maybe kudumi vacha than puriyumo?????

Ready-Drive-1880

Early_Self7066

Everyone forget to see this is from Dinamalar!

Zealousideal_Goose73

This is terrible. A sitting HC judge should be ashamed to narrate such a story in public that too when asked to address a gathering. But I have to say that the last line he says ("If we save the Vedas, the Vedas will save us") seems to be edited out of context. There is a pretty noticeable cut in the video right before that line.

Bangers_n_Mashallah

Reaaon why Brahmin never go to jail

Even if u commit murder like shankaracharya you will be set free 

If you are brahmim it seems ur above law

Individual-Bird-556

If these brahmuns (ukranian Aryans ) treat us majority native indians  like subhumans ,we need to treat them back similarly,

Creepy-Blacksmith684

18 months jail because of tuft of hair is only sarcastic comment

raki7864

What legal system? Judges who favour certain parties can be elevated to the Supreme Court directly as a quid pro quo for their continuing support, ignoring seniority and merit.

FinFangFOMO

Guys if you all think he is biased then you are the biggest fool. He was the one who gave bail to the Muslim preachers from Indonesia during covid, gave permission to protesters against caa ( though modi was good to implement this ) , gave bail to the inhumane sister in the lavanya case whose conversion attempts led to the poor girls suicide. 
Think people!!

Key_Whole_3394

Vesammclearly did not protect the victim here did it?

antsonfir

prabackar

wow. no guilt what so ever ? escaping from law and praising about it. now reverse the role damn cant even imagine the struggles the other parties goes through

its__surya

The guy has just cooked up a story. There was a case in Chennai where no one was punished as there was no conclusive evidence of who drove the car. Hence the Indian Law says 100 persons can be let free but an innocent person cannot be punished at any cost. He cooked up the story with this.

saai_kee

One-Train5167

I think this provides the context behind targeting the judge: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoIDdyuvzd4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoIDdyuvzd4)

sigapuit

He is being targeted as dmk couldn't be able to be involved in corruption peacefully, quota beggars and arivalaya lapdogs keep barking

Fine, but there's the same problem as with abolishing the EU veto: You just cannot fix a flawed system when those in power profit from exploiting the flaws.

TheoremaEgregium

How does he plan to get states, the house and senate to willingly give up power? 

Legally, no branch can abolish another, and why would the senate abolish itself? Why would a state give up the power to gerrymander? 

This is a pipe dream.

fwubglubbel

It sounds like it boils down to "change to a parliamentary republic with a prime minister." 

I like most of these TBH. I've always thought the Senate was stupid and outdated.

IlikeJG

The senate exists because the states exist as their own distinct entities. Any "discussion" about abolishing fundamental structures of American politics should keep that in mind

L_knight316

This is such a goofy, high-school-essay analysis. It's not only ignorant of how Americans perceive their own government, it ignores any of the problems we're currently dealing with. These superficial "solutions" are nothing more than band-aids. 


If you think I'm wrong, ask yourself how you'd respond if the political party you don't agree with made these suggestions. Trump packing the Court or Harris reorganizing Congress. It would be laughable to consider, and in fact IS laughable. 



Zane is always all in for capitalism, so silly suggestions like packing SCOTUS will never solve the fundamental issues of our failing democracy. I know faculty at UW who are embarrassed by this kid's naivete and dogged determination to exist outside of reality, and no one should be wasting their life listening to this kid. 

madhatternalice

If you start there now, money will still corrupt it all.


First, get money out of usa politics. Then expand the 2 party system, then go for reforms now that you have better representation and less corruption.

thenord321

So your solution is to rebuild the American institutions from the ground up? Lol good luck when you can't even get 3 Americans to agree on what to eat for dinner. 

throw_onion_away

Lots of people are complaining about the Congress, but I'm going to say the opposite: look at what the House has been for the past decade or more. It's dysfuncrional, its members infight constantly, and they couldn't even properly crucify their sacred cow, ObamaCare.

The House is a big problem, and making it larger and removing one of its checks seems like a big red flag to me.

Bardez

Why do you need 695 members when they all vote across party lines. You could have the same results with 7 members and save $103 million dollars.

DontBeHatenMeBro

Interesting thought experiment, I guess, but ultimately just a wankfest. Any change like this would only come after a long civil war at which time our country would already have been carved up by the rest of the world.

Soft_Walrus_3605

The Supreme Court of India criticized the reliance on colonial-era practices in criminal investigations, highlighting the need for modern forensic techniques and reforms in the justice delivery system.

Supreme Court on Criminal Justice Reform

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want