It's not easy to have official positions on Justice that are adaptable to every country in the world, but we'll try to give you some important information that will help you understand what we want to implement, globally, with DirectDemocracyS.
First of all, a brief but fundamental premise, to understand the real situation, in a simple, real, undeniable, verified, pragmatic, logical, and common-sense way.
We often hear people say that "the law is the same for everyone." But is that really the case? Indeed, the law is written identically for every citizen, but it isn't always applied the same way in every single case. Dear friends, we're not referring to the vast caseload of trials for anything, but rather to concrete facts. For the same crime, there are different approaches and procedural steps, and even completely different sentences, for a rich, powerful, or famous person, unlike a "normal" person. VIPs can generally afford better lawyers and can handle multiple trials simultaneously and for longer periods, while "ordinary" people often have public defenders, who are often less experienced, and sometimes even corrupt. So, after this brief discussion, we should change the sentence about Justice to read: the law is the same for everyone, but it isn't applied equally for everyone. It's certainly a slightly longer sentence, but it's certainly less hypocritical.
If you still have any doubts, let's give you another example: if a "simple and normal" citizen, or a worker, or worse, a doctor, a teacher, a retiree, a housewife, or a homeless person commits any mistake, or if they break a law, they pay according to the law itself, while those who enforce it, those who issue verdicts, those who pass sentences never pay, for any mistake. One example above all: a "simple and normal" person is imprisoned as an innocent person. In many cases, innocent people have served many years in prison, and unfortunately, there have also been cases of death sentences, of people later declared innocent. Lives cannot be restored, nor can time spent in prison by innocent people, but many of you will say: there is always compensation for surviving relatives (as if a human life could be valued), and then there is compensation for wrongful imprisonment (as if time could be given back). We know that money is useful and necessary, but it can't buy everything, or rather, it shouldn't be able to buy everything. The interesting thing is that the people who caused the damage—that is, all those who were key players in the investigations and adjudicators in the trials—are almost never punished. Instead, they pay these compensations to the victims or their close relatives with public funds. They never pay out of their own pockets, but all of us, with our enormous tax dollars, pay for the mistakes of others. If this is Justice, then the world is completely wrong, and truly rotten.
Now many people will ask us: what would DirectDemocracyS's solution be? Would you perhaps want to kill a judge who issues a wrongful sentence, or eliminate an entire jury, or just the various lawyers, or the investigators, or the whistleblowers? First of all, our system and everyone involved is against the death penalty, not only because it doesn't solve problems, but also because it doesn't prevent them through prevention and fear. The state that kills another person is no better than those who commit even the worst crimes, and for us, the state is all its citizens, and we don't want to take responsibility, even partially, for the killing of a person, even if they have committed atrocious acts. But we will talk about punishment at the appropriate time. In the previous sentences, there is a word that is always present in DirectDemocracyS: responsibility. Holding judges, juries, lawyers, those who accuse, those who investigate, and those who report, accountable for every consequence of their actions and their decisions. Making the Law truly equal and applied exactly the same way for everyone is fundamental to changing and improving the world.
In many countries, when any sentence is issued, it always begins with the phrase: "in the name of the people." This is precisely the real problem: in many countries, judges are not elected by the people, but are often appointed, and not always by people who are in turn elected by the people. Therefore, they have no legal, moral, ethical, or practical right to issue sentences on behalf of the entire people, but only in their own name. To issue sentences on behalf of the people, or even to accuse someone, or even more importantly, to investigate someone, one must have the people's authorization. The same rule must apply to absolutely every activity, in every sector. At DirectDemocracyS, the continuous and complete centrality of the people, correctly informed, competently, neutrally, independently, and incorruptibly, is always fundamental and crucial.
There are those who propose laws to separate the careers of those who report, accuse, investigate, and those who judge, and this is an important first step, but not the only one. To have fair and just justice, we need full accountability, the election of all parties involved, and a multitude of very detailed rules, which we will explain in due course in a long article.
Others propose randomly selecting everyone, which would be a disaster, because in everything there must be equality combined with competence. Randomly selecting judges, juries, and even politicians is and will forever be a mistake that creates more problems than it ideologically solves. A simple example: can you imagine if a completely incompetent and incompetent person were elected to lead an entire country? Some of you will trivially say: What kind of world do you live in? It happens all the time. Well, with random selections, in many cases, it would be even worse. For both justice and politics, even within our own ranks, some people have viewed random selections with interest. Even if based on various professional categories, the choice must always be made by the people, not by rolling dice or letting (potentially manipulated) algorithms decide for us. When it was proposed to us, we gave this example: if you had to have a tooth pulled, we could choose at random, and anyone could do it, even a mechanic. Everything could go well, and it might not even be painful. And if your car breaks down, even a dentist could fix it, and it could work perfectly. But would you want to risk it? Let's explain better: even using different categories, if things could go wrong, for example, for heart surgery, would you trust any doctor, as long as they were competent, or would you want to be able to choose who to operate on you from a list of highly specialized names? As always, choice is always preferable, because it presupposes responsibility, both on the part of the operator and the one who chooses.
There are countless countries where an untouchable caste of privileged individuals manages justice as they please, without being accountable to anyone for their activities. The same thing happens with politics. DirectDemocracyS was created precisely to best solve all these problems.
Competence and the assumption of full responsibility are certainly useful, but they are not enough. The true solution to all evils is to empower the entire population, each according to their own specializations, always putting the right people in the right places. We need to change and improve everyone's mentality, not by manipulating it, but by freeing it and protecting it from any attempt at brainwashing, and above all by eliminating every ideology that has often been outdated and condemned by history. This long and very complicated process does not mean eliminating even the very few and rare positive aspects of the old and failed traditional political forces, and even of the old, unjust, iniquitous, and failed traditional systems. A winning, modern, and innovative mentality can and must preserve the few good aspects, but it must definitively eliminate all the many negative aspects. It doesn't mean eliminating politics, it doesn't mean being anti-system, but it does mean engaging in different, richer, more diverse politics, more attentive to individuality, but in a collective, shared, better, and direct way, making voters the protagonists. And from the old systems, we can and must preserve everything that has worked, changing style, and improving freedom and democracy.
We could give countless examples about justice and politics, and in general about anything that goes wrong in this way, and always offer better, innovative alternatives, but also by putting into practice our solutions, presented in our over 400 informative articles, visible to everyone, and continually growing with new details.
We will never tire of repeating what we observed from the initial stages, when, before partially making our system public, we directly contacted the world's leading political experts. The top 100 of these specialists. Some of them didn't respond to us; deep down, they know full well that the world is going in the wrong direction, and they, being complicit and therefore partly responsible, would certainly be permanently damaged by a system like ours, and by our political organization. Those who did respond to us, upon our observation of the injustice and inequity—what we call oligarchic partycracy, in which the people count for nothing for a very long time after elections—for too many years, almost all of them, told us: this is politics, it's been decided that way, and you can never change it. In essence, they told us: give up, tilt at windmills, and risk being "hit and killed by the mill's blades."
Obviously they didn't scare us, they just disappointed us, because they didn't have the will to get involved and work with us to definitively change and improve politics, and therefore the entire world.
Standing still, helpless , even just criticizing, out of frustration, envy, and hatred, is not part of our DNA, nor that of anyone who, trusting in the validity of our system, joins us.
By the way, although we won't name names for privacy reasons, many of the top 100 foreign politicians in world politics didn't respond. They immediately joined us and began working with all of us to create the best political force in human history, creating it exactly as it was meant to be, to serve the interests and good of the entire world's population forever, without any form of discrimination. For justice, too, and for every possible topic, we have always started by contacting the best experts at the global, continental, and national levels, and we will proceed similarly at the local level.
One person at a time, with calm, determination, intelligence, order, organization, and exceptional safety measures, we will continue to do a great job, and we will demonstrate that we will do it anyway (the change and improvement of the world), even if many would not let us!
PS: We know that the vast majority of charges, investigations, trials, and sentences are based on solid evidence and comply with the law, even if many of these laws can be improved. However, we want to avoid all miscarriages of justice by efficiently preventing any potential problems. We support the complete independence of all the various branches of government, but they must be subordinate to the people, who are ultimately the ones who sustain all state institutions and who often individually suffer any errors. A judge, like a doctor, or any other professional, must perform their role in the most free, professional, and peaceful environment, and obviously, if they make mistakes inadvertently, they must be held accountable without corruption or bad faith.
PS We've clearly explained that the people must hold all power, properly informed by our secure and independent platforms, by groups of competent, neutral, and constantly tested specialists, both for their expertise and their incorruptibility. Only a well-informed voter will be able to make the best choices, and we've discussed this in many of our informative articles.