I don't see how you could call that just. "Making an example" of someone isn't what I'd call justice. Glad we don't really have that concept over here.
The US legal system seems more bonkers every day
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
Associate
“Please don’t break the law or you might end up like this guy.”
Don’t see a problem with that myself - it’s not a larger jail sentence or anything.
Don’t break the law and it won’t be an issue - it’s not difficult.
But we should all be strictly equal under the law. If some of us have more to lose than others, we're not equal under the law.
How do you reconcile punishments that scale with wealth and equality under the law? I can't.
Soldato
Was gonna say if you are trying to make me feel guilty or whatever you are not even close.
So fining poor people for speeding which could be 5-10% of their earnings whereas it's fractions of a percent for anyone earning 6 or 7 figures is equitable then is it?
There's a reason European countries are going for revenue-based fines and it's because flat fines are just business expenses.
Last edited:
Associate
It isn’t a sentencing because it isn’t a criminal trial. In this case, its whatever the Jury decided was correct retributions hFor his acts.
Yes, actually. Fines alone shouldn't be (and aren't) the whole story.
A disqualified driver is a disqualified driver regardless of their income. As far as I know, you can't pay to have points removed, so your wealth doesn't help you there.
And I do believe we shouldn't treat the legal system like we treat income tax. Imho, laws should be absolutely equal for all of us. Same crime, same punishment.
And the jury are just allowed to pick a number out of thin air...
A legal remedy was applied. That’s literally justice defined.
Obviously you can define a justice system as unjust. See BLM, etc...
But it is the same punishment, I take 25% of someone's earnings/wealth it is by definition equitable. If someone doesn't earn anything in criminal court then they can go to prison instead and for civil court matters who cares.
OK, because these are damages awarded to another then let's compare the impact on the plaintiff.
One receives £500 from a poor defendant, the other £10 million from a rich defendant. All things otherwise being equal.
Who had the better justice? Should the person receiving £500 feel justice was served equally?
Do they both have equal incentive to seek justice in the first place?
e: Then lawyers. The first person can't get a good lawyer because there's nothing in it for them. The second gets a great lawyer because he knows there's a ton of money there to be had.
Last edited:
I don’t think that’s how it works, but obviously the punishment has to be relative, or it isn’t punishment, people will take advantage and the wealthy would abuse the system. What you seem to be arguing for is unjust.
Last edited:
Associate
Per a comment elsewhere on social media.If anyone wants to know how Gulliani lost this case so badly, this is his lawyer:
"Business in the front , White Supremacy in the back"
No, we, do, not. Gtfo and live in America
Soldato
Ever heard of percentages?
Soldato
It's like how they charge people for bail.
They are more interested in money than justice.
They are more interested in money than justice.