☹️

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    What autocracy and plutocracy are: functions of government are only the province of the privileged capable of cruel manipulation.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Some fines aren’t a fixed amount. Could also be a percentage of your annual income. There are ways around that as well, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

      • Ravell@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Could also be a percentage of your annual income

        But the truly rich have no “annual income” so wouldn’t their fine be even less than yours?

        • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          The guy who sits at the back of a Phantom has no money or income so he pays no taxes, and he would pay very little fines. The guy who drives a BMW would end up paying enormous fines.

          Yes, this system has exploits.

          During vacation time, you can see other differences too. Strangely though, the first travels to a private island by a private jet. The latter would fly in first class and stay in an expensive hotel.

  • BurnedDonutHole@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    16 hours ago

    As a lawyer with over 20 years of experience I can tell with confidence that there is justice in between the same social groups such as lower class vs lower class and middle class vs middle class. Upper class vs upper class is much more unpredictable, depends on many elements and it can go both ways unless one side is coming from old money, has politicians in the family etc… Unfortunately the illusion of justice, freedom and equality ends when you face someone outside your class.

      • BurnedDonutHole@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I’ll tell you the craziest story I’ve known. It wasn’t my case, but I know the details well.

        The guy was the son of a very wealthy family. He filed for divorce; his wife—refusing to go quietly—dragged the process out as long as she possibly could. Finally, they reached a settlement and agreed to meet in court the following day to make it official.

        She invited him over for one last dinner. During the dinner, something snapped. He murdered her in a way that was beyond gruesome; he reportedly broke 13 different knives on her body. This meant he had to repeatedly stop, walk to the kitchen, grab a new blade, and return to continue the attack. To this day, as far as I know, nobody knows what happened to make him snap like that. Not even his lawyers. He didn’t speak about it to anyone.

        Naturally, his sanity became the central focus of the trial. His defense team leaned into it heavily, and he was sent to a panel of psychologists and medical professionals for a formal assessment. The panel’s report was definitive: he was sane and fully fit for sentencing.

        However, the judge said that according to the medical findings, he was unfit for prison and released him into “medical care”. Despite an appeal from the wife’s family, the higher court upheld the verdict. He walked free, and I’ve met the guy in person. Seems like a normal, well-mannered guy if you don’t know about his history.

        • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Oh wow!
          Sounds pretty odd that he was fit for sentencing, but not fit for prison. Do you think wealth and connections had anything to do with the outcome?

          • BurnedDonutHole@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Well there is no other explanation for that verdict. Legally if the panel says he is sane and fit for sentencing he should have get a proper punishment. Instead the judge let him go.

              • BurnedDonutHole@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                You need irrefutable evidence to prove they committed a crime. The problem is that the legal system grants them too much leeway and “right of interpretation”, so most charges don’t stick. Even when something does, they are usually allowed to resign or retire quietly. The excuse is always the same: “to avoid damaging public trust in the justice system”.

                While there are honorable people in the system, there are also assholes who will ruin your entire day—making you wait hours just because they’re having coffee. There are so many minor infractions happening in a courthouse that would get anyone else fired, yet nothing ever happens to a judge.

                • End-Stage-Ligma@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  Surely they acknowledge that every instance of corruption does more to damage the trust in the justice system than holding themselves accountable. What happens when this lack of faith in the system reaches critical mass?

  • qualia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 day ago

    Anyone interested in this area check out Ted Chiang’s short story It’s 2059, and the Rich Kids are Still Winning.

    Premise: In the future, scientists conduct an experiment to genetically modify poor children to improve their intelligence, so they have a better chance to succeed in life. While the experiment proves to be successful, and the children’s IQ increases, they still fail to achieve social progress, because the entire state system favors the rich only.

  • medem@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 day ago

    Where I come from, there’s a saying that goes something like this: ‘There are only two kinds of people in jail: the very stupid and the very poor.’

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      😢
      Oh, this post is turning out to be a sad one.

      Anyway, I’ve heard that mental illnesses and other psychological issues often lead to jail and only get worse in there. Modern societies are not at all prepared to handle these kinds of problems.

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Insofar as “modern societies” refer to the people who hold power in them, I’m not so sure modern societies are interested in handling these kinds of problems.

        • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Totally agree. It’s all about not being interested in handling these problems. That’s a bit strange though, because the current style is really expensive.

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    19 hours ago

    If there are reforms, I think that one of them is access to lawyers. Rich or poor, you shouldn’t pay for lawyers. Instead, they are all placed into a common pool, where each side picks their representatives. If both sides happen to pick the same lawyers, they roll a dice in front of the court until someone has the higher number. That person gets the lawyer, and the other side draws someone else of choice from the pool.

    I also think that lawyers should rotate in the role they may serve after every case. Prosecution -> Defense -> Prosecution -> Defense, for their entire career as courtroom representatives. If a lawyer refuses to represent, they are barred from serving as a lawyer for four months, and their refusal goes onto a common dossier that anyone can see.

    This encourages the whole profession of lawyers to ensure that the courtroom is fair to both defense and prosecution, and that both roles are equally valid when it comes to reputation.

    • rangber@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Regardless, if you are a defender or a prosecutor, if you want to win, you have to know how the other side works. New lawyer normally need to do pro bono (represent for free) in order to gain experience. Large law firm also dedicate a chunk of their business for pro bono, for public good.

      There are many different types of lawyers out there. I’m not sure if it’s helpful for an intellectual property lawyer to represent a person accused of murder in court.

      Not saying I have an answer. Just something to think about.

  • M137@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Hello, I’m not sober and can’t figure out what this means. How do the rich “pay to evade” juice?

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      If you can afford fancy lawyers, you can exploit loopholes in the legal system. It’s not ethical or right or fair, but money makes it technically legal.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Also the Public Prosecution Office (or whatever one’s country equivalent) are almost almost always arbitrary gatekeepers of the Criminal Justice System, so if they chose from somebody not to be prosecuted for something, they’re not prosecuted and similarly, they can chose to crack down on somebody for something minor and that person will be dragged through the coals for it (they might or not win in the end, but of they can’t afford good lawyers they’ll probably lose).

        So people with enough influence often never even got to court when they commit a crime because the public prosecutors simply don’t prosecute, which they can since they have arbitrary power.

        This is what we’re seeing with all those in the Epstein Files, by the way.

    • BurnedDonutHole@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Epstein Files is the most recent example of how the rich and powerful evade prosecution.

      They know a guy, the guy they know also knows a guy and so on… In this chain of events words goes around from top to bottom to do nothing against these certain special people or there will be consequences.

      And those guys who did nothing get secret gifts or have cushy jobs in billion dollar companies after they decide to go to private sector or get financial support when they decide to join politics.

      • PityPityBangBang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        I disagree. The rich house the police in the USA. The police in the USA don’t own homes frequently in the USA because that information is frequently publicly available. Property records would tie police officers names to an address publicly. So rich people house them for cheap rent in their extra homes to act as protection. No muss, no public records, no fuss, and rich guy has a knight errant available all the time.

        Too bad the poor can’t afford to do that.