I don’t think this deserves to be down voted. It’s a valid perspective I think shared among those that are, perhaps, removed from legal specificities and their make-up.

I also think this point resonates fairly well in smaller courts (read as maybe more rural areas) where the legal system is closely tied with the social system of the area and there are indeed LOTS of incentives to introduce, we’ll calm them, ‘alternative judgements’.

All that said, I think law has to be appropriately ambiguous in order to remain relevant and applicable through change and societal adaptation in norms. Hence, case by case context.

This is why it looks to contain so much flex in the language. Right and wrong is implicitly an ambiguous and ever changing notion, described and defined only by the same body of individuals that mutually agree to uphold it. It’s fluid.

However, I also see the perspective that the fluidity of societal definitions and the increasing ease through technology to greatly influence a vast chunk of that populations opinion, can make these things misalign with ethical appropriateness. See the Nissan.com website case or any other number of court cases that clearly concluded under the coercive pressure of the more powerful/wealthy party.