Ah...I think you're confusing the principle of Equivalent Exchange with the concept of universal morality, or perhaps karmic justice. To assume that the forces of the world will always default in your favor is actually exceedingly arrogant.
In your first example, your good cop sacrificed his marriage in order to have the time and mental resources to pursue what he wanted. Isn't that an exchange in and of itself? The fact that he didn't receive what he wanted is irrelevant; he sacrificed time and resources so he could have time and resources to place elsewhere. The exchange exists, and according to the laws of the world, it was entirely fair. Likewise, the culprit in that case presumably put some effort toward not being discovered, and there was an exchange there as well, given that that person ultimately was not. Perhaps luck was also on his or her side; I don't know. Sometimes people are favored like that simply because they chose to act. But just the same, you can't say that an exchange didn't take place, because on both sides of the equation, there certainly was one. It just didn't have the sort of outcome you'd like - but why should the forces of the world take human happiness into account? All that matters is that balance is preserved.
In your second example...as far as I can tell, as the world is concerned there would be no error to be corrected? Again, Equivalent Exchange has nothing to do with any sort of inherent justice, because to do so would impede on one's free will. If you're going to grant humanity complete agency, you have to accept that they'll use that agency in ways you won't always like or approve of. Is conning someone in such a way at all morally right? Of course it isn't. But there isn't a way to resolve that situation in a way that doesn't involve removing the agency of either the scammer or the old woman. As far as the laws governing the world are concerned - not the moral laws, mind you, as those are subjective and defined by humanity, but the inherent natural laws - that transaction was fair given that it was orchestrated by two individuals of their own free will, mistaken premise or otherwise.
Equivalent Exchange doesn't always mean getting what you want, Lieutenant Blake, and it doesn't always mean getting what you believe to be fair.
no subject
In your first example, your good cop sacrificed his marriage in order to have the time and mental resources to pursue what he wanted. Isn't that an exchange in and of itself? The fact that he didn't receive what he wanted is irrelevant; he sacrificed time and resources so he could have time and resources to place elsewhere. The exchange exists, and according to the laws of the world, it was entirely fair. Likewise, the culprit in that case presumably put some effort toward not being discovered, and there was an exchange there as well, given that that person ultimately was not. Perhaps luck was also on his or her side; I don't know. Sometimes people are favored like that simply because they chose to act. But just the same, you can't say that an exchange didn't take place, because on both sides of the equation, there certainly was one. It just didn't have the sort of outcome you'd like - but why should the forces of the world take human happiness into account? All that matters is that balance is preserved.
In your second example...as far as I can tell, as the world is concerned there would be no error to be corrected? Again, Equivalent Exchange has nothing to do with any sort of inherent justice, because to do so would impede on one's free will. If you're going to grant humanity complete agency, you have to accept that they'll use that agency in ways you won't always like or approve of. Is conning someone in such a way at all morally right? Of course it isn't. But there isn't a way to resolve that situation in a way that doesn't involve removing the agency of either the scammer or the old woman. As far as the laws governing the world are concerned - not the moral laws, mind you, as those are subjective and defined by humanity, but the inherent natural laws - that transaction was fair given that it was orchestrated by two individuals of their own free will, mistaken premise or otherwise.
Equivalent Exchange doesn't always mean getting what you want, Lieutenant Blake, and it doesn't always mean getting what you believe to be fair.