By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — February 13, 2026

The Question Behind the Fear

Public debate has intensified around whether aggressively prosecuting individuals connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case would destabilize powerful institutions. Some critics argue that pursuing every viable case could overwhelm courts or damage political and financial networks.

That argument raises a deeper issue: if enforcing the law equally would cause serious disruption, what does that reveal about the current structure of power?

This analysis does not assume guilt for any unnamed individual. It focuses on the principle at stake — equal enforcement of criminal law.

Collapse or Correction?

When people warn of “collapse,” they usually refer to institutional strain. Courts could face heavy caseloads. Investigations involving wealthy or politically connected individuals would be complex and resource-intensive. Public trust in long-standing institutions might be shaken.

However, the rule of law requires that status does not shield anyone from prosecution when evidence supports charges. If enforcing that principle exposes corruption or favoritism, that is not systemic destruction. It is systemic correction.

A justice system that avoids prosecuting powerful offenders to preserve stability risks undermining its own legitimacy.

The Real Risk to Public Trust

Public trust erodes when people believe there are two standards of justice — one for the powerful and one for everyone else. That perception can be more damaging than any short-term institutional strain caused by high-profile prosecutions.

If victims believe reporting abuse is pointless because alleged offenders have influence, faith in the legal system declines. That quiet erosion is harder to repair than any temporary court backlog.

Accountability, even when uncomfortable, can strengthen long-term trust.

The Burden of Enforcement

Large investigations require resources. They demand careful review of evidence, due process protections, and fair trials. Prosecutors cannot and should not pursue charges without solid legal grounds.

But difficulty is not a valid reason for avoidance.

Courts are designed to handle complex cases. If capacity is insufficient, the solution is reform and funding — not selective enforcement.

Stability Versus Integrity

Institutions often defend stability. Stability has value. But stability built on selective protection carries risk. When misconduct is concealed to preserve reputation, the damage compounds over time.

In contrast, institutions that confront wrongdoing — even when it implicates elites — demonstrate resilience.

Short-term disruption may occur. Careers may end. Reputations may be damaged. Political alliances may shift. Yet that process can reinforce the principle that no one stands above the law.

A Simple Standard

The test is straightforward:

If prosecuting crimes against children would truly “collapse” a system, then that system requires structural reform.

Justice systems exist to protect the vulnerable and apply the law equally. If equal enforcement causes discomfort among the powerful, that discomfort is a consequence of accountability — not a failure of justice.

The greater danger is not collapse through prosecution. It is decay through avoidance.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

This article will be archived as part of the ongoing WPS News Monthly Brief Series available through Amazon.

APA References

No external sources cited. This article is analytical commentary based on publicly discussed policy concerns regarding legal enforcement and institutional accountability.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.