This is because: if one person (me for example) decides to break the law in whatever way i wanted to. If i am not caught in the act it cannot be proven that it was me. if it cannot be proven than the actual event (the breaking of a law) essentially never happened.
You have an obvious flaw here. Just because we don't have a physical someone to do something, it doesn't mean that something cannot happen.
That's like saying that if I close my eyes, the whole world disappears, not just from my vision, but from the whole existence itself.
Also, in our great libertarian country(lol), conviction resides with a jury of 12 incredibly fallible people. Due to this, manipulation of emotion and some fuzzy evidence/a friend who is willing to commit perjury could easily see me walk with a totally clean sheet, out into the public to do whatever i want.
The problems in this paragraph are so many that I doubt I can spot all of them. But I'll see what I can do.
1. manipulation of emotion only applies to those who actually use their emotions in judgment.
2. Creating fuzzy evidence that actually isn't spotted as being a forgery isn't exactly a child's play. Or why do you think "Catch Me If You Can" is still a classic? Well, I'll tell you. It's because the art of forgery takes skill.
3. A friend that is willing to help you and willing to break the law and possibly his own personal moral code is a rare find.
4. Doing whatever you want is a logical impossibility by definition. You cannot do anything that defies logic. Simple as that.
All that is required is planning and a cool head and the entire "justice" system collapses around its sole reddeming quality of habeus corpus as conflicting evidence can always be found (or manufactured.)
So basically your point is to show us that the system is flawed? Wow, I didn't know that before. Wait, didn't someone say something about the humans being imperfect? Oh damn, that kinda explains why the system is flawed and why it will be.
Simple, the system is not perfect, nor will it ever be. Nor does the system always serve justice. It's just a pile of compromises that make it all seem like it works. Which, in the end, is it's purpose. I mean, law itself is order, and we need order for our communities to stay in existence. Therefore, as long as we have any kind of an order, it doesn't matter how broken it is. It's just another excuse.
I think that all laws should carry the death penalty... we should just have a LOT less laws.
Ah, so you are to say that all crimes are equal? That is, if I steal a bread from the market because I'm starving, I'm as horrible as a serial rapist? Ok, good to know. You know, that implies that since I would be horrible if I break law in anyway, I should just go right ahead and break it in the worst possible way. And what's that, you wonder? Disorder.
Repeated offenders should be banished to deserted islands in the middle of nowhere, without tools, clothes, food, or anything other than their naked selves. So they ignore the laws of civilized behavior and prefer to be primitive? Then they shouldn't reap the goods of civilization, and should lead their primitive lives where they can harm no one...
If there is no one in there, then they will die of starvation eventually. So basically, you're pro-death sentence yet you say that your form of death sentence is more humane that death sentence? Nice, a contradiction.
I agree.
That's why crime should only be committed after thinking it out, and planning your witnesses.
"Planning your witnesses", you say? But wouldn't it be best to have none at all? After all, witnesses can and will place you on the crime scene, meaning you are a potential criminal. Being a potential criminal is much worse than not being a suspect. After all, suspects don't have to have committed the crime, they can just be involved it in some form, whereas the criminal is the one who commits the act of crime.
so by that we can agree that the law only applies to those stupid enought to let it restrain them
What about those who are not aware of the laws? For example, small children.
And surely there are laws that are not restrictive at all. For example, the right for your own business is not restrictive at all. And by breaking it, you would restrict yourself or someone else from having their own business.
Therefore, there are also laws that are not restraining. So you cannot say that laws restrain people. If anything, laws guide people.
. Sooooo im gonna post.
) individualy. 
