. How is justice dealt under the king’s rule?

Explanation:

The semi-barbaric king's approach to justice has little to do with the proven innocence or guilt of the accused. Because the accused party selects his own punishment when he chooses a door (and by the way, only men seem to be capable of potentially criminal behavior in this particular kingdom), the king is able to justify in his own mind the inarguable fairness of his judicial system: the criminal chose to do something morally questionable, therefore the criminal chooses his own consequence.

Clearly, this system is flawed in many ways. The accused criminal has no agency when it comes to the door selection situation in the first place. As well, in many cases, the door obscuring the lady may conceal a punishment only somewhat less terrifying than the tiger, despite the fact that she is young and pretty; what if the accused was already happily married? Or what if the lady and the accused didn't actually like each other? A marriage to someone unsuitable can be a punishment in its own right, so the king is not actually providing a fair reward for innocence.

The narrator does not state that the king's subjects find this system perfectly fair. They enjoy the spectacle it provides, and "the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan," but enjoyment and denial do not mean tacit agreement.

idk i just need the points

hi,   i believe the outlines that were supposed to be showing at the sentences, are not. could you highlight them somehow?