View Single Post
Old 11-18-2016, 06:13 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,043
Thanks: 1,340
Thanks 385

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
No I'm not ignoring it. I'm asking for facts.

Now here's some links that might support your proposition:


Now here is the thing. You pay for what you get. The better lawyer can provide a better outcome, costs more. But that is not to say that you're given a less fair trial. No evidence is added or subtracted, you don't get bonus witnesses. That's not inherent inequality that's inequality of outcome which I am perfectly fine with. What I am not ok with is corruption where the basic facts are twisted or omitted.

Also in your earlier post where you did not know the word for a sentence that did not have to be served I believe you were looking for the term commute.
Yes that's exactly it, money is correlated with a better outcome, I'm struggling to understand how that is not biased or how it is fair?

For example, a person (as an agent) with no money who commits a crime, and for example, has no prior conviction will be required to accept a penalty. A person (as an agent) with heaps of money who commits exactly the same crime in the former example, has no prior convictions should also be required to accept the same penalty. But in the latter example they receive a reduced or zero penalty.

How did the law magically change, and how can a poor person commit a future crime in the same manner as a rich person?
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PickleBottom For This Useful Post:
Myers (11-19-2016)