I don't know if there is a "they" there... many systems are autopoietic and don't need an organized "they" to reify themselves.
In my view, the world makes a lot more sense when I look at what systems do instead of the intent of the system's builders.
This view makes conversations difficult, because when we point out that, for instance, the US has a larger prison population than any place, ever, or that the US has the largest and most complex modes of killing masses of people, it can feel very much like we are in wingnut territory.
This is doubly complex because often I find myself talking to people who aren't merely comfortable working from the premise that the putative intentions of systems are the only legitimate way of discussing these systems; some folks identities are so entwined with those systems that any questioning of them becomes an attack on the legitimacy of their identity.
The US police system can be a draconian monstrosity and, at the same time, it doesn't need to be a "they" organizing it. It's sufficient that we identify strongly enough with that authority such that we can't look at horrible things without questioning our own view of the world.
In other words, yeah, I agree- these systems sucks, everyone knows they sucks, and I too feel like a nut when I question them.
The world has gotten better for me as I've been able to progressively give up the idea that I'm the one misunderstanding what is happening, and that there are some clear injustices endemic to these systems.