I have a problem with the notion of equality when applied to human beings. Have never seen it anywhere and am not convinced it exists. People are not equal on all kinds of levels.***
Instead, I look for equity which I think is attainable.
*** EG: in my country people are most certainly not equal before the law. The US made a good start with the Miranda warning and free lawyers. However, lawyers are not free here. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed, BUT a $20,000 lien is put on your house, payable when you die or sell your house. Don’t know what the arrangements are if one is indigent.
Here if you are indigent your legal representation is free through Legal Aid. There is also the Aboriginal Legal Service which will, on occasion take on non First Nation cases. Then we have the Refugees Legal Service and every University offering a law course will, on application (and the merits of the case) allow volunteer 3rd year students to research (but not represent) your case.
However if you are ordinary Joe Blow, with a house and mortgage it is likely you will be bankrupted by any court appearance longer that two days.
I don’t know about your State but over here the cops take great pleasure in seizing all your assets under the legislation that was meant to apply to organised crime, but has been applied to just about every offence…except Police corruption… This of course means that the Legal Aid (public Defenders for you septics) office is overrun with applicants while the Organised Crime and Bikie Gangs merely call on their associates to hire the best lawyer available…
What is real unfortunate is that the attorney provided for you works for the court. He has lunch with the judge and knows all the prosecutors personally. An appointed attorney is BULLSHIT! The legal system is a farce unless you can afford your own attorney. Even then, you are at the whim of backroom deals and secret proceedings that everyone agrees to so that the process can move along.
Not necessarily. However, the law is almost always demonstrably biased in favour of the affluent.
One needs only to understand that legal systems have nothing to with justice. Their function is to maintain the status quo. Most seem to do so with a reasonable degree of effectiveness.
From time to time, justice is both done and seen to be done. This is the result of happy accident, not intent.
I’ll agree with, “From time to time.” We have an adversarial system. It is the “States” job to prove “guilt” to varying degrees or standards. It is not the “states” job to defend the innocent even though there is allegedly a presumption of innocents.
Ask a police officer if he has ever arrested an innocent person and he will inevitably tell you, “No.” Ha ha ha ha …
Everyone a Police Officer Arrests Is Innocent until proved guilty by a court. The officer does not have the power to determine guilt or innocents. The officer, however, is an extension of the court and nothing you say to an officer can ever help you in a court of law. Nothing. The officer is looking for Guilt. He is looking to justify his arrest. He is looking to justify his job. He is certainly unwilling to look like an idiot in front of a judge. The officer is the adversary. The appointed attorney is the adversary. His job is to make the Judge’s job easier and get you to plead out your case.
We need a legal systems of rules for public and social behaviour; also for harm caused to another person or their property.
An ideal.
A process is put in place.
Now the fun part. You’re dealing with humans. The laws, which are written and quite intelligent are there. BUT the process can be lazy, corrupt, bias, over-whelmed, profitable - because individuals are involved.
I’d invest in a good lawyer. Mind you, depends on my age. In Canada, a prison may make a great old-folks home (less deaths via COVID-19)… less neglect…
Not in South Oz if you’ve been very naughty. Then you go to Yatala Labour Prison, which opened in 1854. We have a low security prison at Mt Gambier, which is 300 miles South East
I’ve always understood this to mean treated equality, and without prejudice. Rather than suggesting we are all equal.
However I do see your point, wealth, and privilege are always going to result in inequality, and no law can, or should, determine how we think, but laws should try stop active discrimination, or punish those who actively discriminate.
I always associated the meaning of equality with value and opportunity.
Some may offer what society deems more value (the rich?) compared to say, elderly (experiences?) or men (larger workforce) compared to women (more within child-care) … etc. These are subjective. Like picking eating an orange over a banana.
But both the banana and the orange should have the opportunity to be on display at the grocer.
An appointed attorney will likely need to be reminded of your name and case just before you enter the courtroom. Bail and fines only punish the poor. They’re starting to finally question the bail system here. I read that Germany scales fines according to income.
Yeah, they taught me that in US Government class, and I believed it too! At least until I was arrested (in court!) for pleading not guilty to a traffic charge.
That is what they should have taught us in US Government class.
Appointed attorneys are not from a pool of lawyers employed by the state. They come from ordinary practices and provide a high standard of service.
@ White
I guess about 30 years a ago, I worked with a bloke who was an incompetent moron. He left as required when he got preselection for a safe Liberal (conservative) seat. He was elected and after a few years he was made state minister for correctional services.
Here we have remand centre, many inmates have not yet been tried and so are presumed innocent. Wayne discovered the centre had a swimming pool. He had it filled in.
The drongo had not grasped the reason we put people in prison in my society: The punishment is loss of liberty. People are put in prison as punishment, not to be punished.
Of course prison also protects the community from a large variety of oxygen thieves. Victims may sometimes get a feeling of justice. This is incidental.
I guess you get what you pay for. To bankrupt yourself to get decent representation could be worth it if your freedom was at stake. A big percentage of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are for medical bills, at least you don’t have that worry. Neither dilemma would be pleasant.
Just so. That’s the rub. A working person of unexceptional means may be able to afford a competent lawyer. A person of wealth can afford a legal team, costing more than a decent house.
I guess a cliche now, but the trial of O J Simpson comes to mind. There is no doubt in my mind that if he had been an ordinary American black man he may well still be serving two life sentences or be on death row.
My interpretation of that case is that police tried to frame a guilty man and his lawyers baffled the jury with bullshit. Just an opinion, after all I’m just an ignorant foreigner.
My money would be on him on death row. A double murder by a black man? Oh, yeah. I firmly believe his ability to hire all those lawyers and experts to muddy the waters saved him. Also, the trial would never have been moved to a jurisdiction with a largely minority jury pool if they hadn’t needed the bigger court room to accommodate the press coverage and extra security his celebrity status caused. I was laid off during some of the trial so I got to watch a fair amount of it. Better than any soap opera. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the cops tried to frame him though. For one thing they found the other glove and blood on the Bronco (things claimed to be planted) at Simpson’s house before they knew if he had an airtight alibi. How would they have explained that? Also,not being from the US you might not realize he was quite the beloved and admired sports hero, often ranked among the top 5 most admired men, so it’s hard to imagine all those cops out to get him. The black jurors had plenty of reasons to distrust the L.A. police though. The lawyers and experts played on their suspicions and gave them all the reasons they needed to not convict him.
—and your point is? (argument from incredulity fallacy)
One could just as reasonably argue that the police thought he was guilty and were so monumentally disappointed in him that they framed him.
I don’t know. I only mentioned the police framing him because I’ve heard it from several sources over several years. A quick search shows there does not seem to be a consensus in this smatter.
Just to muddy the waters, there is a theory that his son Jason committed the murders.
The whole thing confused the hell out of me. Have never been able to come to an informed opinion. My original point had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but chances of acquittal depending on how much money a person has.
Oh, no point that makes any sense. He was just a very likable guy and it was a shock to a lot of people that he was capable of that. The verdict was one of those things that most people in the U.S. could tell you where they were when they heard it. Reactions were so obviously split by race, black americans cheered and white americans were in shock.
The 2016 T.V. anthology “The People vs. OJ Simpson” was very well done. It had one of my favorite actresses Sarah Paulson as Marcia Clark. There’s also a ton of books. I really liked the one by the prosecutor Chris Darden. Simpson did, of course, end up spending 9 years in prison for an unrelated armed robbery. He couldn’t afford the fancy lawyers that time, and it did seem like pay back, since he got a much harsher sentence than what was usually given for similar crimes.
