Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor. (Read 8809 times)

Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

In the US that's the norm.

If one breaks the law what transpires is different based on personal wealth. The poor are likely to go to jail while the wealthy are likely to face a fine and perform "community service."
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131124/NEWS04/311240325

Is this phenomenon unique to the US or does it exist where you live?

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

In the US that's the norm.

If one breaks the law what transpires is different based on personal wealth. The poor are likely to go to jail while the wealthy are likely to face a fine and perform "community service."
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131124/NEWS04/311240325

Is this phenomenon unique to the US or does it exist where you live?

Can confirm that England does indeed have two justice systems. Source? Personal observation when I lived there.

I am interested in hearing if William Howie Wallace thinks Scotland does, or what @Luxor thinks.
The Welsh appeared similar to the English, imo, and I never got to observe N. Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #2 –
Oh it has on occasion happened in Britain but nice dance there Colonel. . As far as up here is concerned a bit less so I think although nothing to do with our legal system as such. For the unenlightened Scotland has a different legal world whilst Wales and N. Ireland share the English pattern. Maybe it is because we have less filthy rich here. Oh and as for the stir up on William Wallace, yes a fine man at a difficult historical time. My brother is a Wallace fan but I think King Robert the Bruce is the great one as he routed Edward at Bannockburn although expected to lose. My brother is as staunch a Unionist as I and the whole family too.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #3 –
Quote
The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell.
US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #5 –
To summarise, it says everybody does propaganda. How is that specifically my looking glass?

Btw, I am a professional in journalism and media analysis. It's my job. You?

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #6 –
Quote from: ersi on

Btw, I am a professional in journalism and media analysis. It's my job. You?

You've already proved your 'analytic abilities'. :left:
No, I'm not a journalist.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #7 –
Well, you have not had anything to say against my abilities. Just that they exist, while acknowledging right now that you have none. It's okay. No further questions.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
In the US that's the norm.

To have a Law system doesn't mean that there's Justice.
This distinction is fundamental and many times people tends to forget it.

Law and Justice are two different things, somehow related but not identical.
Societies believes that by applying systematically a Law system Justice will happen more frequently. Just that.
Law is a method, while justice is a value. One applies the first trying to achieve the second.

Poor and rich are in fact different societies and what it happens is that we have two different Law systems. Since this is not "pretty", the way of doing it is by using " interpretations" of the Law that will guarantee that, in fact, there are two different Law systems applied to two different societies.

It's obvious that it creates perplexity and revolt but people are forced to "conform" with it, dura lex sed lex.

The entire thing is a farce just as democracy also is. Even worst, what we're talking is the objective of modern democracy, have no doubts about it.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

To have a Law system doesn't mean that there's Justice.
This distinction is fundamental and many times people tends of forget it.
The actual law-makers readily equate the legal system of their own making with justice, sometimes even with divine justice. If you want to differ from them, you practically must do the same as they do - write and pass laws - but making them really just. This makes you indistinguishable from others, because they all say this is exactly what they are doing.

Politics is hopeless. There's only arguable and fragile comparative betterness in some places.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #12 –
Quote from: ersi on
The actual law-makers readily equate the legal system of their own making with justice, sometimes even with divine justice. If you want to differ from them, you practically must do the same as they do - write and pass laws - but making them really just. This makes you indistinguishable from others, because they all say this is exactly what they are doing.
What is justice?
Is it absolute or relative/dependable?

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #13 –
Is it just/fair for a wolf to eat a lam?
Is it just for the lam to get eaten?
Should we prohibit those wolves from eating lams? Will it be just for them?..

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #14 –
Quote from: ersi on
The actual law-makers readily equate the legal system of their own making with justice, sometimes even with divine justice. If you want to differ from them, you practically must do the same as they do - write and pass laws - but making them really just. This makes you indistinguishable from others, because they all say this is exactly what they are doing.

There are alternatives. For example, consuetudinary laws (non written laws that are based on the local usages and traditions) have already proofed it's legitimacy and that it serves the benefit of everybody at the best possible way.

Another fundamental thing is to stop the proliferation of making laws and laws and more laws. The principle that everything is allowed and free unless forbidden should remain.
This is extremely important and vital since what's happening is that societies are being deliberately transformed to the opposite, everything being forbidden unless allowed.
Quote from: ersi on
Politics is hopeless. There's only arguable and fragile comparative betterness in some places.

That, I agree with you.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

In the US that's the norm.

If one breaks the law what transpires is different based on personal wealth. The poor are likely to go to jail while the wealthy are likely to face a fine and perform "community service."
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131124/NEWS04/311240325

Is this phenomenon unique to the US or does it exist where you live?
I haven't come across an absolutely fair system anywhere, where everyone is equal under the law. However there are degrees of unfairness, and some systems are more capricious while others are more consistent. The rich and the powerful have advantages in a lawful society, but that is dwarfed by the advantages the rich and powerful have in a lawless society.

Judges tend to be a part of the more affluent part of society, and would view crimes committed towards them differently than crimes committed by them. 

Expensive and extended court cases are more in the favour of those who can wait, that is the ones with the deeper pockets.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
There are alternatives. For example, consuetudinary laws (non written laws that are based on the local usages and traditions) have already proofed it's legitimacy and that it serves the benefit of everybody at the best possible way.

Yep, it is in the best interest of everybody who counts.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #18 –
Quote from: jax on
Expensive and extended court cases are more in the favour of those who can wait, that is the ones with the deeper pockets.

I'll also note the same for fines. I understand Gérard Depardieu was fined €4000 recently for riding drunk on a scooter. For me, that would be a serious setback. For him, I guess he was earning several times that amount while he was busy not turning up to the hearing.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #19 –
Quote from: jax on
Judges tend to be a part of the more affluent part of society, and would view crimes committed towards them differently than crimes committed by them

If so, and so it is, then, they are not judges.
Not being judges but acting like if they were, makes them impostors and consequently must be treated accordingly.

Thankfully, not all judges are like that.
Judges are the only possibility for defending populations from the nazi policies (and polices) that are going on all over the world, made by politics. At least, without civil war scenarios.
Such judges are increasingly rare and the entire judicial system has been made so they have no place there.

What I'm saying applies to the entire western, modern, rich, democratic, developed world, no matter the country. Small nuances can differ but the basis and objectives are the same. It's part of the plan.

Anyway, as I said, two societies, two law systems.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #21 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Oh it has on occasion happened in Britain but nice dance there Colonel. . As far as up here is concerned a bit less so I think although nothing to do with our legal system as such. For the unenlightened Scotland has a different legal world whilst Wales and N. Ireland share the English pattern. Maybe it is because we have less filthy rich here. Oh and as for the stir up on William Wallace, yes a fine man at a difficult historical time. My brother is a Wallace fan but I think King Robert the Bruce is the great one as he routed Edward at Bannockburn although expected to lose. My brother is as staunch a Unionist as I and the whole family too.

Yes, as I noted, Scotland's is to it's own tune, whilst the others generally follow England's lead.

Both are indeed great historical figures, though I wish you'd warm to your new name, William Howie Wallace!  :devil:

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #22 –
Quote
Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-04-07, 22:08:58
I have had a long political history myself, as it happens, so I have a particular interest and determination to keep Scotland where it is.

Unless continental drift takes over, Scotland is in no danger of drifting away as in the past.
Quote
Scotland has drifted across the surface of the planet like a great Ark, constructed of rock rather than wood, and driven not by the tides and winds, but by the movement of plates on the Earth's surface. It carried a varied cargo of plants and animals. These early forms of life had to adapt to the ever-changing environmental conditions - or die out. Evidence for deep oceans, scalding deserts and tropical rainforests are all to be found in Scotland's record of the rocks. And so, the early inhabitants evolved to fit these environmental niches.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #23 –
Here's Kyle Kulinski's take on Marc Andreessen. I can note that henceforth "robber baron oligarch" is an ordinary term in progressive commentary for America's business elite, implying that the elite has a similar interplay with the regime as in Russia or any other kleptocracy, dictatorship, or backwards failed state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWW-x-jRBGQ

As I keep saying, USA is socio-economically a third world dump when compared to Europe. This is not really saying anything good about Europe though. European countries are busy demolishing their own social safety net too as we speak, and EU treaties have ceased to hold any value.

Re: Two Systems of Justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Reply #24 –
Nobody is explaining Musk better than Gil Duran https://www.thenerdreich.com/author/gil/

Nerd Reich is a good term he has come up for the current regime in USA. An ideologist (as opposed to operative like Musk right now) for it is Curtis Yarvin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn52wL1b334

There is a gang called Paypal Mafia. Thiel, Musk and Andreessen are among its insiders. Paypal is an online payment service kind of thing. However, the gang does not want to comply with the regulations for the financial sector, things like don't let scammers loot your platform (or when an intruder gets in, detect them, out them, ban them) and don't be a scammer yourself.[1]

The hallmark of this mafia is to scoff at the regulations, not acknowledging what the regulations aim to achieve, and going on to do what they want while not really knowing what they are doing. This was evident in Musk's weed-smoking interview with Joe Rogan, when Rogan asked Musk "Getting those permissions must be hard. I mean, you need permissions from the authorities to dig (the tunnel under LA), right?" and Musk looked at him with glassy eyes, not understanding the question and mumbling about something totally different. Musk is not the kind of guy who asks permission. He is also not making apologies after the fact. He just does stuff and lets the public (usually the government) cover the costs regardless whether it goes right or wrong.[2]

It was also evident in Rogan's interview with Andreessen when Andreessen explained PEP's to Rogan while not knowing what they are. I figured out why he mentioned PEP's: Andreessen had tried to set up another online payment service kind of thing, but it did not pass. Obviously, when you do not know what PEP's are but operating a payment service requires you to know what they are then you don't pass. With Musk being the real ruler now, everything Andreessen gets into his head to do passes, regardless if he knows what he is doing or not, and insofar as payment services are concerned he evidently doesn't know even though he is a Paypal Mafia insider.
1 Remember that Honey scam was Paypal's latest project, so they are eager to scam.↵
2 Trump says Musk has his permission. Fat chance. There is no executive order about it and at this stage even if Trump issues an executive order to stop Musk, Musk can just laugh at it. Trump (and entire government of USA) have been doged by Musk.↵