So we think it's ultimately important to define justice then, this would look like upholding the existing laws put in place and not necessarily like following your own moral values even if it's just, in the first olace these laws were put in place by a panel if tens to hundreds of high ranking individuals who fight for justice secondly it's important to take nuance into consideration, realistically speaking these people had the agency to actively prevent this so they chose to break the law knowing what it encompasses so we think that they chose to take on the consequences thereof and if they did not have the agency to do so nuance forces us to then evaluate them differently So in conclusion we provide a rigid structural law system that evaluates actors ensuring justice as I previously defined. We anyways give a better actor analysis

We also would like to analyze the impact of not charging them, this would create immediate unprecedented backlash from active members of the status quo which otherwise follow unjust laws and may cause an even greater amount of people to also break laws they see as unjust for good reasons, two things to highlight here firstly this introduces a question to the affirmative side what are unjust laws how do they look and who decides that they are unjust secondly then on impact of this on how laws are then curated and questioned, this creates more questioning done by members of society towards the government on ethics of laws agreed upon forcing them to change laws or even causing like huge burdens on the government as the overwhelming nature of this is of such a huge magnitude I have more but I'm speaking a lot so yeah I'm going to end here