The argument that the needs of many outweigh the needs of one and this is a basic principle the masses of civilized nations accept. There are, of course, those renegade criminals who show us what a world where everyone did what felt best for them would result in. One could make the definite argument that in order for societies to operate those individuals must sacrifice some of the freedoms we consider basic.
To add some academic merit to this argument I quote an episode of the social mockumentary The Office, in an episode where Michael Scott poses the question, "Who should be the judges and juries of society?" to which Angela replies, "...judges and juries." Is she right? In America, we don't pick our peers and we certainly don't pick our juries; if you were on trial how comfortable would you feel relinquishing your "sovereignty" to total strangers who just happen to be members of your society?
It is certainly unsettling to think that one may be judged by someone with equal or greater flaws than themselves. Nonetheless, no superior model has super ceded the present one and we are forced to rely on the injustice of our justice in order that order may be preserved.