"You either stand for your principles in all circumstances or none. If they only count for 'easy' cases they are worthless anyway." So a third-striker convicte

"You either stand for your principles in all circumstances or none. If they only count for 'easy' cases they are worthless anyway." So a third-striker convicted to 15 years in jail for stealing a loaf of bread is equally 'deserving' of help than a child murderer? Okay... Look I would agree if you would say 'we'll focus on a group and if there happen to be undeserving people in that group, we'll grudgingly accept that as 'collateral damage'' - but saying that there can be no advocacy until you can, up front, define exactly what you will stand for and what not, and if you miss an edge case you somehow have a moral obligation to take those 'under your wing' so to say, is just naively rigid absolutism.