Justice is a luxury the poor can’t afford and the rich pay to evade.
Justice is a luxury the poor can’t afford and the rich pay to evade.
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?
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.
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.
😢
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also the Public Prosecution Office (or whatever one’s country equivalent) are almost almost always arbitrary gatekeepers of the Criminal Justice System, so if they chose from somebody not to be prosecuted for something, they’re not prosecuted and similarly, they can chose to crack down on somebody for something minor and that person will be dragged through the coals for it (they might or not win in the end, but of they can’t afford good lawyers they’ll probably lose).
So people with enough influence often never even got to court when they commit a crime because the public prosecutors simply don’t prosecute, which they can since they have arbitrary power.
This is what we’re seeing with all those in the Epstein Files, by the way.
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.
You need irrefutable evidence to prove they committed a crime. The problem is that the legal system grants them too much leeway and “right of interpretation”, so most charges don’t stick. Even when something does, they are usually allowed to resign or retire quietly. The excuse is always the same: “to avoid damaging public trust in the justice system”.
While there are honorable people in the system, there are also assholes who will ruin your entire day—making you wait hours just because they’re having coffee. There are so many minor infractions happening in a courthouse that would get anyone else fired, yet nothing ever happens to a judge.