They broke laws, and they were found guilty by a jury of their peers even upon the presumption of innocence. 

Do you know why people committed these crimes? I prefer a justice system that takes their background into account and takes steps to improve the lives of these people. A justice system that only punishes without addressing the underlying issues is not a good system.

The fact that you are arguing that the US' system is unrivaled only shows your prejudice and arrogance.

Sentencing takes into account the background. The law itself is blind, under which all are equal. You're saying you'd let off a murderer because he had a rough childhood or what now? I am not saying our system os unrivaled, I am saying I am content, even happy, to be subject to it over any other I know of. It is not incumbent on me to find a preferable one if I like it. It is on you as the critic to do so. I will consider it if you make a good case.

Okay let's take Norway as an example. It's a smaller country ofcourse, but there's no reason this can't scale.

In Norway, fewer than 4,000 of the country's 5 million people were behind bars as of August 2014.

That makes Norway's incarceration rate just 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 707 people for every 100,000 people in the US.

On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years.

Norway also has a relatively low level of crime compared to the US, according to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The majority of crimes reported to police there are theft-related incidents, and violent crime is mostly confined to areas with drug trafficking and gang problems.

Based on that information, it's safe to assume Norway's criminal justice system is doing something right. Few citizens there go to prison, and those who do usually go only once. So how does Norway accomplish this feat? The country relies on a concept called "restorative justice," which aims to repair the harm caused by crime rather than punish people. This system focuses on rehabilitating prisoners.

Norway isn't a great example because Norway is also far, far more culturally and economically homogeneous than the US, though that is changing.

Bangladesh has an even lower incarceration rate, but its prisons are apparently horrifying places of routine human right abuse. Should that be the guide? Perhaps that can scale - half of the bottom 15 countries in terms of incarceration rate have histories of extreme human rights abuse but according to the crime information, their criminal justice system is doing something right - few citizens go to prison and most only go once.

That doesn't at all convey to me what I'm trying to find out: would I wish to be tried in the Norwegian system if I were charged with a given crime rather than in the United States? Neither where would I prefer to carry out my sentence, nor where I think the socioeconomic factors that lead to crime are best prevented. Those are all worthwhile questions, to be clear, but not what I was getting at.

By refering to personal preference, you are ignoring my arguments and the issues at hand.

I'm ignoring your arguments because we're on a sub-tangent that I started on just one point of your comment - that our prison population is somehow evidence of our lack of freedom, and I would like to limit it to that in order to get some clarity on it. I have nothing to say on the other points. I may even totally agree with you on them. If you don't want to engage this specific point anymore, fine.

Why?

You do that yourself

"I prefer a justice system that takes their background into account and takes steps to improve the lives of these people."

That was an answer to his question, not my entire rebuttal.

Your preference for a justice system is your rebuttal. You are discussing whether it's ok or not and you have rules for what you think is ok. That is exactly your rebuttal.

Have you watched the documentary the 13th? It covers severe issues with the incarceration rate in the United States, for example, the high proportion of black people incarcerated for the same crimes white people are completely let go of or otherwise not charges. How the justice system is very selective on what laws to enforce along racial lines. Stop and frisk turned out to mean “stop all the black people exclusively and search them”. How people are pressured to take plea deals even though they may indeed be innocent. How the police have been known to literally plant evidence or incite violence within communities or protests to force arrests.

> found guilty by a jury of their peers

This statement is factually incorrect for the vast majority of those incarcerated in the US

True in theory but there is widespread abuse of plea deals in the US justice system.