I asked you for a quote. You can't quote anything I wrote that justifies your interpretation.
Giving the police much greater freedom to act greatly increases the degree you rely on their integrity.
As I said, I already quoted it and explained it. If you can't or won't understand the implications of your own ideas then it's on you.
In the US, every single arrest is now dealt with quickly by the prosecutor's office representing the state. From there, the case goes into the convoluted court system.
They are not dealt with 'quickly', most people who commit minor offences are released with a citation to reappear at a a later date.
The Court is a poorly conceived expert panel. It would be better if the members were randomly selected by computer from a list of qualified candidates rather than appointed. And nine members is not enough. A panel of say 33 would be far less likely to be ruled by the same bias.
In this case the political battle moves to who decides on the 'qualified candidates'
Panel members from one culture are more likely to have a bias affecting the majority vote than panelists from various cultures. For example, the biases associated with nationalism would not affect an expert panel with its members from different countries.
Your views seem very insular and naive regarding cultural diversity. Different cultures have very different attitudes as to what constitutes justice, and all of the people you cite as supporting moral intuitionism acknowledge the role of culture in moral intuition.
This is a nonsense statement because the practicality obviously depends on whether the project needs formal rules, laws in this case. I've argued that laws are less than useless and offered reasons to support my case.
An organisation that oversees laws and justice and has hundreds of thousands of employees operating in diverse environments obviously requires some level of formal rules as every organisation with hundreds of thousands of employees does.
I didn't claim that scale doesn't matter. I'm claiming that there is no reason to think that it won't work at scale. I can't prove there is no reason because I can't prove the negative. However, you could prove me wrong by offering one good reason that it won't work. Thus far, all you've offered is your claim that it won't..
Look at any organisation/business as scale increases so does formalisation (i.e. written rules and procedures) and standardisation. This is well known in management.
Look it up if you don't believe me and are genuinely interested in finding ways to challenge your own assumptions.
Since the laws vary, isn't it obvious that they can't all be serving justice? These cases need to be judged independently by an expert panel since the maturity of the individuals involved isn't simply a matter of age.
The fact that you think this is workable pretty much says it all.
How are people to work out what constitutes 'mature enough', especially when someone's outward behaviour may be very different from their internal levels of maturity or their physical development may be very different from their mental development?
With zero formalisation of standardisation, involving people from diverse cultures around the world, you would get wildly different interpretations of the law which would make it fundamentally unjust.
Non-experts need to know when they are committing a crime in order for legal systems to be just and a whole load of laws are far more subjective 'grey areas' than murder and theft and the simplistic examples you always rely on.