Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Just a brief tangent regarding 'dual justice systems'
They exist. And money helps.
That said - a TON of it is white noise; it's static. There are absolutely inconsistent outcomes and some of them are driven by money, fame and/or race. But the overwhelming number of them are driven by individual actors. A single prosecutor somewhere who has a burr in his ass about some particular issue. Or a judge that didn't get laid on his birthday.
The 'system' is still just a collection of individual actors. All of whom have their own proclivities and their own foibles. They have good days and bad. Some of them flat out suck at their jobs.
But this idea that there's dual tracks and Rice, by virtue of his fame and/or wealth, will get the 'high road' track that none of us would ever see isn't really supportable. In some cases, in fact, fame is a hindrance. Many celebrities have gotten nailed to the wall over shit that rank and file folks skate on (Martha Stewart going to prison still cracks me up a bit; and I think one of those college fraud actresses got hammered pretty good as well if my memory serves).
There's not an obvious Venn Diagram when it comes to inconsistent outcomes.
|
There are Martha Stewart-sized outliers, but no. The wealthiest among us will be able to afford top tier representation that can devote all their time and resources to helping them evade responsibility for their actions.
Everybody else will have to settle for whatever their month-to-month finances allow, and the least wealthy of us have to rely on public defenders. And these people simply do not have the financial, temporal, or manpower resources that we'd otherwise get in an ideal world. For the wealthiest among us, they are living in that ideal world.
Like you said, the dual track system exists, but it's not just a marginal difference.