3 ms·

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be. The middle class and wealthy have more "skin in the game" when it comes to law enforcement. Put diffe

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be. The middle class and wealthy have more "skin in the game" when it comes to law enforcement. Put differently - they have a lot more to lose. If you are a white collar working schmoe then a conviction can be a big and real problem for you, affecting your employment and this flows on to your financial commitments. If you have deep pockets and you clearly wrong somebody then you have a very big target on your back. Any number of lawyers will be tripping over themselves to make sure justice is served (... for a percentage). An addict with no assets, no reputation and no relationships on the line has zero reason not to commit more crime, and plenty of reason to do it (addiction).

runako 6y ago
I'm strictly speaking of people who have been accused and not convicted. (Keep in mind that in the US, all of these people fall into the category "innocent.") From arrest to trial can easily be over a year. The simple fact is rich people like Sacks will not ever stay in jail during that period, while the poor and middle class often do (because they don't have access to the money to pay bail). This is very clearly a two-tiered system. To be clear: even facing a $1m or $5m bail, someone like Sacks would walk free the day after arrest and be free until convicted in court. This is simply not true for most people, who will sit in a cell for months to over a year waiting for trial. Where Sacks is innocent until proven guilty, poorer people are guilty until proven innocent (because they will have served time either way). > If you have deep pockets and you clearly wrong somebody then you have a very big target on your back. Any number of lawyers will be tripping over themselves to make justice is served. This is naive thinking at best. Rich people are also a prime source of campaign donations. Nobody wants to impair a potential donor.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

runako 6y ago

I'm strictly speaking of people who have been accused and not convicted. (Keep in mind that in the US, all of these people fall into the category "innocent.") From arrest to trial can easily be over a year. The simple fact is rich people like Sacks will not ever stay in jail during that period, while the poor and middle class often do (because they don't have access to the money to pay bail). This is very clearly a two-tiered system. To be clear: even facing a $1m or $5m bail, someone like Sacks would walk free the day after arrest and be free until convicted in court. This is simply not true for most people, who will sit in a cell for months to over a year waiting for trial. Where Sacks is innocent until proven guilty, poorer people are guilty until proven innocent (because they will have served time either way). > If you have deep pockets and you clearly wrong somebody then you have a very big target on your back. Any number of lawyers will be tripping over themselves to make justice is served. This is naive thinking at best. Rich people are also a prime source of campaign donations. Nobody wants to impair a potential donor.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]