So the logic is…
The laws only apply to the poor except for exceptions where rich are on their way to poor and can be used as examples of the exception .
Weinstein? Diddy? Epstein?
I think the more apt description would be that when you’re got something that makes other people money, then you will be protected. When that ends you’re fair game.
I also agree that the more money you have the better defence you can get, but I don’t believe laws only apply to the poor. That’s hyperbole.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 days ago
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
I don’t believe that’s what I said, or at least it wasn’t my intention. I was more trying to highlight that wealthy people (which are not in the way to being poor) will be protected by the people that stand to gain from that protection, not simply for being rich.
I also explicitly said that the justice system does favour the rich, not in a malicious way but more because we have a system that means rich folk can afford more man hours which translates to a better defence.
I want to be clear I’m not defending rich folk here, just being a pedant I guess.
Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 days ago
Ah yeah we are all pedants here and such while I understand and mostly agree with your comment I now must include.
Uhh, actually we don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
Haha how dare you out pedant me.
andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 days ago
All three of those examples got away with it for literal decades.
Both Weinstein and Diddy were known dangers in their industry.
They took Epstein out because you know he had compromat on Trump. Best friends.
Or - the Cosby shit was an open secret. No one cared until Hannibal Buress started pointing it out.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
Literally what I’m saying. They got away with it because they had utility for other people and when they no longer did that’s when they get indicted, cause people stop running cover.