I have no idea why you were downvoted (and physically couldn't downvote you as a direct reply, but anyway). I think I agree that Al Capone was nominally punished for a crime that wasn'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'm not sure that I think a seven-year sentence would have really been sufficient for the fullness of his crimes.
Perhaps more importantly, if Wikipedia'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't raise objections they could have raised. So I don't think the Capone example contradicts my claims in the end. We need defense lawyers for actual, unquestionable criminals because they have the singular goal of making sure people aren't unfairly or vindictively prosecuted. We understand that having just a prosecutor and a judge risks unjust outcomes. So it's unsurprising that wasn't the passive-voice "approach taken" 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.
At best it's not clear what your point is or what position you're espousing, which I think is a mostly valid reason for downvote-and-move-on. For instance, it's not clear whether you think the prosecution of Capone was just or unjust.
> which I think is a mostly valid reason for downvote-and-move-on. For instance, it's not clear whether you think the prosecution of Capone was just or unjust
I don't see why this makes the comment less worthwhile. I think going for Al Capone that way was a terrible idea, but you seem to have changed your own mind in the other direction based on my viewpoint-free comment. (At least, that's what I get from "I'm not sure that I think a seven-year sentence would have really been sufficient for the fullness of his crimes".) I highlighted a point from your comment and pointed out that a lot of people don't share that value at all; I think that's worth noting regardless of whether your ultimate conclusion is "hmm, Al Capone illustrates that only punishing people for the crimes they committed is a bad idea" or "the US justice system has been going downhill since the early 20th century, but I wish people would come to their senses".
Perhaps more importantly, if Wikipedia'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't raise objections they could have raised. So I don't think the Capone example contradicts my claims in the end. We need defense lawyers for actual, unquestionable criminals because they have the singular goal of making sure people aren't unfairly or vindictively prosecuted. We understand that having just a prosecutor and a judge risks unjust outcomes. So it's unsurprising that wasn't the passive-voice "approach taken" 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.
At best it's not clear what your point is or what position you're espousing, which I think is a mostly valid reason for downvote-and-move-on. For instance, it's not clear whether you think the prosecution of Capone was just or unjust.