Is law equal for all? (86)
godeas69dublin, Dublin Ireland1 Threads 309 PostsAha all wrong, Law is a business, all are in it to make money. Lawyers, judges, the works. Why do you think it's so expensive? So justice can be done? Nope so everyone gets a big pay day.
carlosweb10: Are laws applied in the same way for all?
I think they're only as equal as they're allowed to be.
The Law is.....................But Lawyers and Judges are not....
godeas69: Aha all wrong, Law is a business, all are in it to make money. Lawyers, judges, the works. Why do you think it's so expensive? So justice can be done? Nope so everyone gets a big pay day.
Everything is a business. Dentists don't fill cavities because it's fun. Doctor's won't treat your cancer because they love you. Taxi drivers don't give you free limo service because you're just a really cool guy. Lawyers, however, will sometimes do pro bono work. Try to get one of those other fellas to do their work for you for free and see how loud they laugh in your face.
Just because people do something for a living and just because it's a business, you can't honestly assert that this alone makes it some sort of scam on you. First time someone's actions cause actionable damage to you or your property, you'll be looking for a lawyer and you won't be giving them any crap about what they do for a living, I'll wager.
TrueBlue1986: British law isn't an equal playing field. Obviously the rich can afford better lawyers but also there is political correctness which has the effect of treating minorities differently - when righting a previous wrong it is impossible not to introduce a new bias and so basically we have inverted discrimination in the modern era.
You know, I really get peeved bigtime when people moan on about lawyers.
Lawyers are simply doing a job. They act on their client's instructions only, and therefore any prolonged negotiations, lengthy court cases are brought about by the clients' willingness to prolong.
I worked in law for many, many years. I know plenty of lawyers, especially ones just starting out, who worked long hours, travelled around the country obtaining evidence and depositions (and never charged for it), took on plenty of pro bono work in order to get their names and reputations known.
They study long and hard, and it takes as much commitment to become a lawyer as it does a doctor or a dentist. Dont hear people moaning about them.
Whether the "law is equal for all" is a subjective question: it depends if you are on the winning side in lots of cases; what is right for one is unfair to the other.
Again, lawyers ARE SIMPLY DOING A JOB. They only act on clients' instructions. Nothing more.
Lawyers are simply doing a job. They act on their client's instructions only, and therefore any prolonged negotiations, lengthy court cases are brought about by the clients' willingness to prolong.
I worked in law for many, many years. I know plenty of lawyers, especially ones just starting out, who worked long hours, travelled around the country obtaining evidence and depositions (and never charged for it), took on plenty of pro bono work in order to get their names and reputations known.
They study long and hard, and it takes as much commitment to become a lawyer as it does a doctor or a dentist. Dont hear people moaning about them.
Whether the "law is equal for all" is a subjective question: it depends if you are on the winning side in lots of cases; what is right for one is unfair to the other.
Again, lawyers ARE SIMPLY DOING A JOB. They only act on clients' instructions. Nothing more.
Bodecia: You know, I really get peeved bigtime when people moan on about lawyers.
Lawyers are simply doing a job. They act on their client's instructions only, and therefore any prolonged negotiations, lengthy court cases are brought about by the clients' willingness to prolong.
I worked in law for many, many years. I know plenty of lawyers, especially ones just starting out, who worked long hours, travelled around the country obtaining evidence and depositions (and never charged for it), took on plenty of pro bono work in order to get their names and reputations known.
They study long and hard, and it takes as much commitment to become a lawyer as it does a doctor or a dentist. Dont hear people moaning about them.
Whether the "law is equal for all" is a subjective question: it depends if you are on the winning side in lots of cases; what is right for one is unfair to the other.
Again, lawyers ARE SIMPLY DOING A JOB. They only act on clients' instructions. Nothing more.
By the by I was kidding with you the other day & responded but apparently you were gone. I have to disagree generally speaking from my experience not only as a cop but in personal life-majority of criminal & divorce attorneys that are established are bottom feeders and I equate them with car salespeople...Lawyers are simply doing a job. They act on their client's instructions only, and therefore any prolonged negotiations, lengthy court cases are brought about by the clients' willingness to prolong.
I worked in law for many, many years. I know plenty of lawyers, especially ones just starting out, who worked long hours, travelled around the country obtaining evidence and depositions (and never charged for it), took on plenty of pro bono work in order to get their names and reputations known.
They study long and hard, and it takes as much commitment to become a lawyer as it does a doctor or a dentist. Dont hear people moaning about them.
Whether the "law is equal for all" is a subjective question: it depends if you are on the winning side in lots of cases; what is right for one is unfair to the other.
Again, lawyers ARE SIMPLY DOING A JOB. They only act on clients' instructions. Nothing more.
drbombay: By the by I was kidding with you the other day & responded but apparently you were gone. I have to disagree generally speaking from my experience not only as a cop but in personal life-majority of criminal & divorce attorneys that are established are bottom feeders and I equate them with car salespeople...
Well, there will always be the Ambulance Chaser Types, who are despicable, of course and not real true lawyers in the sense of the word. They are, I agree little more than annoying little leeches.
Divorce lawyers CAN be sharks; especially in this country I have learned, but again, that really depends on what clients' instructions are. If they are instructed to go for the throat, they will. They are working for their client. Morality goes out the window sometimes there, but again, blame the client, not the lawyer.I dont know what instance you were talking about, Dr, but I know you are much too nice a person to cause deliberate offence! Im not sure what you said or when, but be assured I didnt take any!
Bodecia: Well, there will always be the Ambulance Chaser Types, who are despicable, of course and not real true lawyers in the sense of the word. They are, I agree little more than annoying little leeches. Divorce lawyers CAN be sharks; especially in this country I have learned, but again, that really depends on what clients' instructions are. If they are instructed to go for the throat, they will. They are working for their client. Morality goes out the window sometimes there, but again, blame the client, not the lawyer.
I dont know what instance you were talking about, Dr, but I know you are much too nice a person to cause deliberate offence! Im not sure what you said or when, but be assured I didnt take any!
I dont know what instance you were talking about, Dr, but I know you are much too nice a person to cause deliberate offence! Im not sure what you said or when, but be assured I didnt take any!
Albertaghost: I know of no law that does any of the above. Can you provide these laws so that we can see them?
We're not talking about individual laws. We're talking about the application of law as a body.
Money is and always has been the determining factor. The rich can afford lawyers, and the richer you are, the more legal muscle you can afford.
Poor people have very little access to the law. In Canada and the US, a poor person cannot afford a lawyer. The only way a poor person can be guaranteed to get a lawyer is if he or she has been accused of a crime. That's when legal aid kicks in, and good luck, because legal aid lawyers are generally the worst of the worst.
The bourgeoisie is the monied middle class.
Judges get paid off all the time.
It depends on where you live, character of the law enforcement people who enforce the law and how much money you have.
thewall2: Judges get paid off all the time.
Hey, wasn't it in Montreal that you guys had a street-person and an innocent bystander gunned down by the police?
Montreal has a bad history of out-of-control cops. Like back in the 70's, when they burst into a room and machine-gunned a bunch of guys to death. Only problem was, they had the wrong room . . .
gsmonks: We're not talking about individual laws. We're talking about the application of law as a body.
I was the first to answer this question;
""Are laws applied in the same way for all? ""
I stated that they are with no excpetions.
gsmonks: Money is and always has been the determining factor. The rich can afford lawyers, and the richer you are, the more legal muscle you can afford. Poor people have very little access to the law. In Canada and the US, a poor person cannot afford a lawyer. The only way a poor person can be guaranteed to get a lawyer is if he or she has been accused of a crime. That's when legal aid kicks in, and good luck, because legal aid lawyers are generally the worst of the worst.
That is correct and I addressed this as well by saying;
""I do believe however, it is not the law or how it is applied that is at fault but the ability of some to mount an expensive defense or prosecution that makes a lot of difference.""
In any case, the law and the laws are not the3 problem but the ability to articulate oneself in a court of law when confronted with the justice system.
gsmonks:
The bourgeoisie is the monied middle class.
The bourgeoisie is the monied middle class.
I guess that because I work twelve to sixteen hours a day doing work that nobody else wants to do that I am bourgeois.
My advice is to attempt to stay out of trouble as best one can toavoid having a record that reflects negatively on yourself and, use whatever resources one can after deep thought to utilize what resources one can if confronted in a court of law. And working your tail off to accumulate some wealth and become bourgeois also helps if you need to pay for somebody better than a court appointed lawyer to help out.
Albertaghost: I was the first to answer this question;
""Are laws applied in the same way for all? ""
I stated that they are with no excpetions.
That is correct and I addressed this as well by saying;
""I do believe however, it is not the law or how it is applied that is at fault but the ability of some to mount an expensive defense or prosecution that makes a lot of difference.""
In any case, the law and the laws are not the3 problem but the ability to articulate oneself in a court of law when confronted with the justice system.
I guess that because I work twelve to sixteen hours a day doing work that nobody else wants to do that I am bourgeois.
My advice is to attempt to stay out of trouble as best one can toavoid having a record that reflects negatively on yourself and, use whatever resources one can after deep thought to utilize what resources one can if confronted in a court of law. And working your tail off to accumulate some wealth and become bourgeois also helps if you need to pay for somebody better than a court appointed lawyer to help out.
""Are laws applied in the same way for all? ""
I stated that they are with no excpetions.
That is correct and I addressed this as well by saying;
""I do believe however, it is not the law or how it is applied that is at fault but the ability of some to mount an expensive defense or prosecution that makes a lot of difference.""
In any case, the law and the laws are not the3 problem but the ability to articulate oneself in a court of law when confronted with the justice system.
I guess that because I work twelve to sixteen hours a day doing work that nobody else wants to do that I am bourgeois.
My advice is to attempt to stay out of trouble as best one can toavoid having a record that reflects negatively on yourself and, use whatever resources one can after deep thought to utilize what resources one can if confronted in a court of law. And working your tail off to accumulate some wealth and become bourgeois also helps if you need to pay for somebody better than a court appointed lawyer to help out.
Heh- do you get extra points for answering questions first?
I have to respectfully disagree about becoming a member of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the largest body of consumers within the general public, and consumerism is the most destructive force on the face of the planet.
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that point?
I do think that education is key, though, that law should be taught in school, perhaps as early as grade 6.
gsmonks: Heh- do you get extra points for answering questions first?
Do you get extra points for being an a**hole? You said;
""We're not talking about individual laws. We're talking about the application of law as a body. ""
hence, since you quoted me in the first post after the OP, whatever you were discussing was not what you quoted me on and so, you were mistaken in chastitizing me for not being part of what you, and whomever you were speaking with were discussing..
gsmonks: I have to respectfully disagree about becoming a member of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the largest body of consumers within the general public, and consumerism is the most destructive force on the face of the planet.
So since according to you it is the 'monied middle class' it is me, a guy who works his tail off.
gsmonks: Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that point? .
I don't think you and I will agree on very much.
.I do think that education is key, though, that law should be taught in school, perhaps as early as grade 6.
Or maybe, teach people to not break the law. That I do believe is still being taught as we speak. Then possibly how to ensure they are within the law and then, the avenues they may use to ensure they understand the law and then, ensure they can find proper representation should they ever run afoul of the law.
Of course, understanding leagal proceedure and such would help and, could be taught starting in grade six as you say.
Holy! We agreed on something. Just like two peas in a pod.
Just for the record, I didn't quote you. I didn't read your post.
Secondly, watch your yap. Your "a**hole" comment was completely out of line.
You certainly don't get ANY points for being a rude jerk.
Secondly, watch your yap. Your "a**hole" comment was completely out of line.
You certainly don't get ANY points for being a rude jerk.
gsmonks: Just for the record, I didn't quote you. I didn't read your post.
Then maybe you should have when you quoted me seven posts up. You quoted me as saying from my first post;
Albertaghost: ""I know of no law that does any of the above. Can you provide these laws so that we can see them?""
The above was me replying to the first post. Then you quoted it and said you were talking about something else however, I was talking to the OP and you had yet to chime in so it was faily irrelevent to comment on what you were talking about when I had spoken ling before.
gsmonks:""We're not talking about individual laws. We're talking about the application of law as a body.
""
gsmonks: Secondly, watch your yap. Your "a**hole" comment was completely out of line.
I'll be sure to 'watch my yap' you stop posting a**hole comments such as ""Heh- do you get extra points for answering questions first? "" followed by a smarmy emoticon.
gsmonks: You certainly don't get ANY points for being a rude jerk.
Well, you started it so I'm game.
Now, have you something to contribute to the thread that has relevence. We are speaking of laws and how they themselves are equal or not, not how people interpret them or, how they are applied by flawed humans but the laws themselves. I see that you like many others have avoided this aspect preferring to wallow in the unequality of who has what and how they got it rather than annswer the simple question the OP has posed.
Albertaghost: Then maybe you should have when you quoted me seven posts up. You quoted me as saying from my first post;
Albertaghost: ""I know of no law that does any of the above. Can you provide these laws so that we can see them?""
The above was me replying to the first post. Then you quoted it and said you were talking about something else however, I was talking to the OP and you had yet to chime in so it was faily irrelevent to comment on what you were talking about when I had spoken ling before.
gsmonks:""We're not talking about individual laws. We're talking about the application of law as a body.
""
I'll be sure to 'watch my yap' you stop posting a**hole comments such as ""Heh- do you get extra points for answering questions first? "" followed by a smarmy emoticon.
Well, you started it so I'm game.
Now, have you something to contribute to the thread that has relevence. We are speaking of laws and how they themselves are equal or not, not how people interpret them or, how they are applied by flawed humans but the laws themselves. I see that you like many others have avoided this aspect preferring to wallow in the unequality of who has what and how they got it rather than annswer the simple question the OP has posed.
Albertaghost: ""I know of no law that does any of the above. Can you provide these laws so that we can see them?""
The above was me replying to the first post. Then you quoted it and said you were talking about something else however, I was talking to the OP and you had yet to chime in so it was faily irrelevent to comment on what you were talking about when I had spoken ling before.
gsmonks:""We're not talking about individual laws. We're talking about the application of law as a body.
""
I'll be sure to 'watch my yap' you stop posting a**hole comments such as ""Heh- do you get extra points for answering questions first? "" followed by a smarmy emoticon.
Well, you started it so I'm game.
Now, have you something to contribute to the thread that has relevence. We are speaking of laws and how they themselves are equal or not, not how people interpret them or, how they are applied by flawed humans but the laws themselves. I see that you like many others have avoided this aspect preferring to wallow in the unequality of who has what and how they got it rather than annswer the simple question the OP has posed.
Your responses are extremely rude and inappropriate, and are contributing absolutely nothing.
What you seem to be after is confrontation for the sake of confrontation.
You don't pay attention, you don't listen, and then you respond with more of the same.
In your way, you're as bad as that rabid anti-semite who posted his little hate-rant yesterday.
I'll leave you to it. I have better things to do than to try to reason with a lout.
gsmonks: Your responses are extremely rude and inappropriate, and are contributing absolutely nothing.
What you seem to be after is confrontation for the sake of confrontation.
You don't pay attention, you don't listen, and then you respond with more of the same.
In your way, you're as bad as that rabid anti-semite who posted his little hate-rant yesterday.
I'll leave you to it. I have better things to do than to try to reason with a lout.
What you seem to be after is confrontation for the sake of confrontation.
You don't pay attention, you don't listen, and then you respond with more of the same.
In your way, you're as bad as that rabid anti-semite who posted his little hate-rant yesterday.
I'll leave you to it. I have better things to do than to try to reason with a lout.
You said that you were discussing something already however, you were replying to a post I made yesterday. When I pointed this out you ridiculed me for pointing out that I had posted what you quoted yesterday.
Pfft...
NO, of course law isn't equal for all !!! Governments are run by the banks and the multi-national corporations...law has never been about stopping crime, law is enforced to keep social control, to keep the general public in their place...and to keep the rich ruling the world's counties with an iron fist...that's all it's there for to keep the rich rich and to keep the poor poor
jpunk: NO, of course law isn't equal for all !!! Governments are run by the banks and the multi-national corporations...law has never been about stopping crime, law is enforced to keep social control, to keep the general public in their place...and to keep the rich ruling the world's counties with an iron fist...that's all it's there for to keep the rich rich and to keep the poor poor
When a law says you may not park in a certain location unless you have a permit, it matters not who parks there without a permit as it applies to everybody.
When a person breaks the law, if he has a better lawyer to represent him, and, he beats the case then he has not nulified the law as the law cannot be beaten or dismissed as it is a fact. The only variable is that he has shown that that particular law at that time did not apply to him.
In other words, the law is what it is - for all. Some people are better at proving that it did not apply to them for various legitimate or illigitimate reasons.
Kris Kristofferson: The Law is for Protection of The People
Billy Dalton staggered on the sidewalk
Someone said, he stumbled and he fell
Six squad cars came screamin' to the rescue
Hauled old Billy Dalton off to jail
'Cause the law is for protection of the people
Rules are rules and any fool can see
We don't need no drunks like Billy Dalton
Scarin' decent folks like you and me, no siree
Homer Lee Hunnicut was nothin' but a hippy
Walkin' through this world without a care
Then one day, six strappin' brave policeman
Held down Homer Lee and cut his hair
'Cause the law is for protection of the people
Rules are rules and any fool can see
We don't need no hairy headed hippies
Scarin' decent folks like you and me, no siree
Oh, so thank your lucky stars, you've got protection
Walk the line and never mind the cost
And don't wonder who them lawmen was protectin'
When they nailed the Savior to the cross
'Cause the law is for protection of the people
Rules are rules and any fool can see
We don't need no riddle speakin' prophets
Scarin' decent folks like you and me, no siree
jpunk: NO, of course law isn't equal for all !!! Governments are run by the banks and the multi-national corporations...law has never been about stopping crime, law is enforced to keep social control, to keep the general public in their place...and to keep the rich ruling the world's counties with an iron fist...that's all it's there for to keep the rich rich and to keep the poor poor
Perhaps we should stop people making lots of money! Being successful,taking risks.After all,people that employ thousands of people,and provide other work for other businesses,who,in turn employ thousands of people,are just a waste of time,arnt they?
Lets get rid of Richard Branson,Alan Sugar ect.Why should they benifit from starting from nothing,and being successful? Dont worry about all the unemployed should they go,or the loss of revenue they bring the UK,and what they pay in business and personal taxes.
Lets all sit around and moan about those who have got off thier arses and made a success of thier lives.
used to play sport with a lawyer, he used to say,
the only way to beat the system is never to get involved in the system,, meaning legal problems, says a lot,
know a man who was fined 65 thousand dollars for some thing he did not do, he had a choice, hire an expensive barristar or cop a fine,
no money no help big fine,
yep justice for all.....
the only way to beat the system is never to get involved in the system,, meaning legal problems, says a lot,
know a man who was fined 65 thousand dollars for some thing he did not do, he had a choice, hire an expensive barristar or cop a fine,
no money no help big fine,
yep justice for all.....
Albertaghost: sorry. Was trying to make it simple. I will use another offence then.
When a law says you may not kill another person unless you have a permit via government sanctions and the applied proceedures, it matters not who who without the 'permit' and following the proper prodedures as it applies to everybody.
When a person breaks the law, if he has a better lawyer to represent him, and, he beats the case then he has not nulified the law as the law cannot be beaten or dismissed as it is a fact. The only variable is that he has shown that that particular law at that time did not apply to him.
In other words, the law is what it is - for all. Some people are better at proving that it did not apply to them for various legitimate or illigitimate reasons.
When a law says you may not kill another person unless you have a permit via government sanctions and the applied proceedures, it matters not who who without the 'permit' and following the proper prodedures as it applies to everybody.
When a person breaks the law, if he has a better lawyer to represent him, and, he beats the case then he has not nulified the law as the law cannot be beaten or dismissed as it is a fact. The only variable is that he has shown that that particular law at that time did not apply to him.
In other words, the law is what it is - for all. Some people are better at proving that it did not apply to them for various legitimate or illigitimate reasons.
That sounds very nice in theory, but in practice that's not how it works at all.
Laws in Canada and the US have a built-in class bias.
In the starkest possible terms, let's look at the way a poor street person with an addiction is treated by the police and the courts vs a cop, judge or lawyer with the same problem.
The poor street person is automatically deemed a hype, scum, a low-life, a social parasite, a junkie, we all know the derogatory language and the spirit in which it is delivered.
A cop, judge or lawyer who develops an addiction is automatically protected from such bigotry, is sheltered from scrutiny, recieves support and counselling, and is deemed to have hit a rough patch.
The way the poor street person is treated compared to the cop, lawyer and judge is diametrically different. The "hype" can be thrown in jail, can have sentence piled upon sentence, for something that is a medical, not a legal problem.
Where people who are well-off are concerned, people like Conrad Black are able to supply character references to the court. This is a process that is abused all the time. Rich crooks get their cronies to vouch for them, when the lot of them are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Their so-called "contributions to society" are important factors when it comes to both being charged and being sentenced. A person who is far less guilty, who can supply no such ammunition, can expect a far different outcome. The law in both instances is the same, but the application of that law is not. It is far from a level playing-field.
gsmonks: That sounds very nice in theory, but in practice that's not how it works at all.
Laws in Canada and the US have a built-in class bias.
In the starkest possible terms, let's look at the way a poor street person with an addiction is treated by the police and the courts vs a cop, judge or lawyer with the same problem.
The poor street person is automatically deemed a hype, scum, a low-life, a social parasite, a junkie, we all know the derogatory language and the spirit in which it is delivered.
A cop, judge or lawyer who develops an addiction is automatically protected from such bigotry, is sheltered from scrutiny, recieves support and counselling, and is deemed to have hit a rough patch.
The way the poor street person is treated compared to the cop, lawyer and judge is diametrically different. The "hype" can be thrown in jail, can have sentence piled upon sentence, for something that is a medical, not a legal problem.
Where people who are well-off are concerned, people like Conrad Black are able to supply character references to the court. This is a process that is abused all the time. Rich crooks get their cronies to vouch for them, when the lot of them are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Their so-called "contributions to society" are important factors when it comes to both being charged and being sentenced. A person who is far less guilty, who can supply no such ammunition, can expect a far different outcome. The law in both instances is the same, but the application of that law is not. It is far from a level playing-field.
I don't know about where you are but the cops here are not-case & point-police here can be totally exonerated in court & still face deparmental hearing & for the most part dismissed(kangaroo court so to speak) and defies double jeopardy (not only have Miranda-right to remain silent-but also GO15 which is department issuance of rights. The only thing that your point is correct to some extent the alcoholics are sent to rehab & babied which I object too for I worked with some & not good I might add even with rehab(big time attitude problem)...Laws in Canada and the US have a built-in class bias.
In the starkest possible terms, let's look at the way a poor street person with an addiction is treated by the police and the courts vs a cop, judge or lawyer with the same problem.
The poor street person is automatically deemed a hype, scum, a low-life, a social parasite, a junkie, we all know the derogatory language and the spirit in which it is delivered.
A cop, judge or lawyer who develops an addiction is automatically protected from such bigotry, is sheltered from scrutiny, recieves support and counselling, and is deemed to have hit a rough patch.
The way the poor street person is treated compared to the cop, lawyer and judge is diametrically different. The "hype" can be thrown in jail, can have sentence piled upon sentence, for something that is a medical, not a legal problem.
Where people who are well-off are concerned, people like Conrad Black are able to supply character references to the court. This is a process that is abused all the time. Rich crooks get their cronies to vouch for them, when the lot of them are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Their so-called "contributions to society" are important factors when it comes to both being charged and being sentenced. A person who is far less guilty, who can supply no such ammunition, can expect a far different outcome. The law in both instances is the same, but the application of that law is not. It is far from a level playing-field.
gsmonks: That sounds very nice in theory, but in practice that's not how it works at all.
Laws in Canada and the US have a built-in class bias.
In the starkest possible terms, let's look at the way a poor street person with an addiction is treated by the police and the courts vs a cop, judge or lawyer with the same problem.
The poor street person is automatically deemed a hype, scum, a low-life, a social parasite, a junkie, we all know the derogatory language and the spirit in which it is delivered.
A cop, judge or lawyer who develops an addiction is automatically protected from such bigotry, is sheltered from scrutiny, recieves support and counselling, and is deemed to have hit a rough patch.
The way the poor street person is treated compared to the cop, lawyer and judge is diametrically different. The "hype" can be thrown in jail, can have sentence piled upon sentence, for something that is a medical, not a legal problem.
Where people who are well-off are concerned, people like Conrad Black are able to supply character references to the court. This is a process that is abused all the time. Rich crooks get their cronies to vouch for them, when the lot of them are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Their so-called "contributions to society" are important factors when it comes to both being charged and being sentenced. A person who is far less guilty, who can supply no such ammunition, can expect a far different outcome. The law in both instances is the same, but the application of that law is not. It is far from a level playing-field.
The problem is with Enforcing the Law Equally,not with the Law itself!Laws in Canada and the US have a built-in class bias.
In the starkest possible terms, let's look at the way a poor street person with an addiction is treated by the police and the courts vs a cop, judge or lawyer with the same problem.
The poor street person is automatically deemed a hype, scum, a low-life, a social parasite, a junkie, we all know the derogatory language and the spirit in which it is delivered.
A cop, judge or lawyer who develops an addiction is automatically protected from such bigotry, is sheltered from scrutiny, recieves support and counselling, and is deemed to have hit a rough patch.
The way the poor street person is treated compared to the cop, lawyer and judge is diametrically different. The "hype" can be thrown in jail, can have sentence piled upon sentence, for something that is a medical, not a legal problem.
Where people who are well-off are concerned, people like Conrad Black are able to supply character references to the court. This is a process that is abused all the time. Rich crooks get their cronies to vouch for them, when the lot of them are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Their so-called "contributions to society" are important factors when it comes to both being charged and being sentenced. A person who is far less guilty, who can supply no such ammunition, can expect a far different outcome. The law in both instances is the same, but the application of that law is not. It is far from a level playing-field.
There is a bit of difference there!
Conrad73: The problem is with Enforcing the Law Equally,not with the Law itself!
There is a bit of difference there!
There is a bit of difference there!
Not really. It is built into the law to treat people differently, depending upon their station. Laws routinely discriminate against certain segments of society, such as the poor.
Take family law, for example. Where custody of children is concerned, women are given preference. That's entrenched right in the law. No level playing-field there.
You can't make the law treat people equally because who a person is is taken into account as a matter of course. The law is and always has been skewed in terms of class, politics and money.
It's a common mistake to assume that the law is neutral, a thing that simply is what it is.
The law is a tool, and it must be remembered what a tool is.
A tool is a thing that, when used, becomes an extension of ourselves. Although this may sound existential and unnecessarily abstract, consider the law as an object- say, a hammer.
A hammer is not the same thing to and for everyone that uses it. It becomes an extension of each individual user, and each individual user is different. One person may wield it clumsily and ineptly, another like an artist. One person may wield it for good or to support a cause, another may use it solely to accomplish some vicious, mean-spirited end.
And so it is with the law. It's not a neutral thing that is the same to and for all people. It takes on the character, and becomes an extension, of every person that makes use of it.
Further, the law doesn't exist, but for people. It exists in our heads. It's an aspect of us, of our culture, of who and what we are. Take people out of the equation and the law ceases to be. And people themselves are not automatons, are not written in stone, are not inflexible.
The law is a tool, and it must be remembered what a tool is.
A tool is a thing that, when used, becomes an extension of ourselves. Although this may sound existential and unnecessarily abstract, consider the law as an object- say, a hammer.
A hammer is not the same thing to and for everyone that uses it. It becomes an extension of each individual user, and each individual user is different. One person may wield it clumsily and ineptly, another like an artist. One person may wield it for good or to support a cause, another may use it solely to accomplish some vicious, mean-spirited end.
And so it is with the law. It's not a neutral thing that is the same to and for all people. It takes on the character, and becomes an extension, of every person that makes use of it.
Further, the law doesn't exist, but for people. It exists in our heads. It's an aspect of us, of our culture, of who and what we are. Take people out of the equation and the law ceases to be. And people themselves are not automatons, are not written in stone, are not inflexible.
More Threads
1830's Music
everything is changing
Nature
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Reality Check
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
How far is too far?
Icebergs Still Around
rarotonga
Salami, Salami, Baloney
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »