There’s something deeply unsettling about our justice system. No, not the part where innocent people get wrongfully convicted—that’s just a tragic side effect. I’m talking about the real injustice: the fact that horrible, obviously guilty criminals get legal representation at all.

Why are we wasting time with trials, evidence, and “due process” when we all know they did it? If public outrage is enough to convict someone in the court of Twitter, why bother with pesky things like “defense attorneys” or “reasonable doubt”?

The More Heinous the Crime, The Less They Deserve a Lawyer

Let’s be honest—some crimes are so monstrous that the mere act of defending the accused should be grounds for disbarment. If your client is accused of something truly vile, the only ethical response is to stand up in court and say:

“Your Honor, my client is clearly a demon in human skin, and I refuse to participate in this farce. Lock them up and throw away the key. Also, please revoke my law license for having taken this case.”

But no. Instead, we have lawyers out here doing their jobs, insisting on things like “evidence,” “cross-examination,” and “constitutional rights.” Disgusting.

If the Internet Says They’re Guilty, That Should Be Enough

Why bother with a trial when we already have Twitter threads, TikTok takes, and Facebook comment sections delivering airtight verdicts? If 10,000 strangers online are certain someone’s guilty, who are we to question that? Due process is just bureaucratic red tape standing in the way of swift, emotionally satisfying justice.

And don’t even get me started on defense attorneys who poke holes in the prosecution’s case. Oh, so the police mishandled evidence? So what? The defendant probably did it, and that’s all that matters. If the system has to bend (or break) a few rules to punish the right people, that’s a small price to pay.

The Solution? Automatic Guilt for Certain Crimes

We need a new legal standard: The Worse the Accusation, The Less Defense You Get.

• Misdemeanor? Fine, you can have a lawyer.
• Felony? Only if the court feels like it.
• Really, really bad crime? Immediate conviction—no lawyer, no trial, just straight to punishment.

Think of the efficiency! No more drawn-out trials, no more “innocent until proven guilty” nonsense—just instant justice, delivered fresh and hot like a fast-food verdict.

Lawyers Who Defend Monsters Are Just as Bad

Any attorney who takes on a high-profile, morally repugnant client is clearly complicit in their crimes. Why else would they insist on things like “fair treatment” and “legal rights” unless they secretly approve of whatever horrible thing their client did?

We should publicly shame these lawyers, strip them of their licenses, and maybe even charge them as accomplices. After all, if you defend a murderer, you’re basically helping murder, right?

Conclusion: Abolish Defense Attorneys (For the Really Bad Cases, Anyway)

At the end of the day, the only people who benefit from defense lawyers are criminals and pedants who care about “justice” over “vengeance.” And frankly, that’s not the kind of society I want to live in.

So let’s streamline the process: You’re accused, you’re guilty, you’re punished. No loopholes, no technicalities, and definitely no lawyers getting in the way.

Justice served. 🔥⚖️

What do you think? Should some crimes be so bad that defendants don’t get a fair trial? Or is this take hotter than a malfunctioning incandescent bulb? Sound off in the comments!

(Just in case you are an idiot: This is satire. But you already knew that… right?)