There's a thousand ways to skin a cat.

Let me ask a question.

A man steals a few cans of milk powder using excessive force he knows how. On the facts he gets convicted and is jailed  for 2 years. The law ignores his level of intelligence.

In another case a person steals over 1 billion says  he doesn't  know where  the  money comes from took the money  from x company  not from y.  He cannot be charged because  he says so returns some of the money he gets away scott-free.

In case 1 the law ignores the level of intelligence while in the second, to cut it short, celebrates  the level of intelligence  and rewards the more sophisticated  person by dropping all charges.

The law says it bases its decision on the facts and that's  why the  sentence  is different.  The degree of mischief  is lost in legal sophistry. The judge does  nothing but interprets the letter of the law.

The law can always be differentiated on the  facts-so that an apek cina can always dispute everything  under the sky while contrarian views to his, because  they don't resort  to social  media, makes us unaware of them. It makes his views seemed persuasive.

Let's  not rush to judgement just because we have not heard contrarian views and therefore  accepts glib arguments from apek cina.

Is the mischief  of stealing $50 more severe than stealing $1 billion? Is hiding behind  technicalities more commendable?
The powdered milk thief behaves in the only way he knows how while the  1 billion felon has many things going  for him including unsolicited defence from an attention  grabbing lawyer.

But who wants to defend the powder milk thief?  Making excuses for the 1 billion felon is more news-worthy.

So lets not be taken in by robust but glib rationalisation.