Institutional norms often assume that error is addressed through appeals, collateral review, and procedural safeguards. In practice, these mechanisms are constrained by doctrines that prioritize closure, deference, and efficiency. As cases progress, the system’s tolerance for correction diminishes, even when legal or factual flaws are acknowledged but left unaddressed.

Discretion: exercised by prosecutors, courts, and reviewing bodies, operates within institutional incentives that reward affirmation over disruption. Volume gradually replaces validity. Weak charges are absorbed into stronger narratives. Structural pressure discourages revisiting outcomes once they have been processed and affirmed.

The result is a system that appears orderly while quietly insulating itself from destabilization. Error is not always denied; it is rendered functionally irrelevant.