Submitted 14 hours ago by TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
☹️
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.
Thanks. That was… interesting but depressing to read.
Anyway, here’s the link to anyone else who happens to be curious.
Where do we find this story.
Maybe in one of the two links that other commenters posted to it?
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.’
😢
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.
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.
Justice is a spider web. It’s made to catch small bugs. Bigger animals just trample the damn thing.
That’s a very good way to think about it.
I begged to know if justice is a form far-out or in he said son, there is no justice there’s just what and that just is.
So that means I can start woodchipping criminals, right?
After all, there is no justice.
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.
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.
That’s why you all should know that Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Hello, I’m not sober and can’t figure out what this means. How do the rich “pay to evade” juice?
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 out 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.
If you can afford fancy layers, you can exploit loopholes in the legal system. It’s not ethical or right or fair, but money makes it technically legal.
What do the police do with it then ?
Their job is to enforce the law. That may or may not be associated with justice. No guarantees though.
They have nothing to do with it.
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 to an address publicly. So rich people house them for cheap rent in their extra homes to act as protection.
Too bad the poor can’t afford to do that.
they use it as a cudgel and beat the poor with it until they submit.
The cost of justice is too damn high!
That made me think of a riddle.
The poor beg for my arrival.
The rich never want to see me.
The poor can’t afford my visit.
The rich pay block my entry.
Who am I?
Adult Santa Claus
Justice?
This is the endgame of uncapped lawyer fees.
Totally.
Also, it’s kinda funny to strictly follow this logic, because it means that the rich still struggle to get justice if the criminals are the rich.
When a rich person screws over another rich person, the one with more money will be able to inflict greater injustice on the other. Either way, this equation involves no justice, and people pay to keep it that way.
Pretty much sums it up
Yep 100%
Hypothetically, how much wealthier do I need to be in order to pay to lock up a racist white dude?
You mean those broke warehouse workers who spend their pennies on ugly tattoos and cheap beer? If you have a decent insurance that covers legal bills, you should be fine.
BurnedDonutHole@ani.social 2 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.
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 1 hour ago
Sounds like you have seen some interesting cases. Care to share?
BurnedDonutHole@ani.social 33 minutes 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.