Do the poor get Justice in America, or is Justice only enjoyed by the rich?
926493
Justice implies an even hand, \nthat there exisist a real standard that applies to all.\n\nthis is obviously not the case in city to city in state to state.\nthere is the impression of justice, when a high profile case on tv gets played over and over.\nbut as for the poor who everyday enter our legal system,\n\nit is not the same for them.\nThe rich have resources and connections we can not even imagine....
376644
The system functions to maintain the status quo. Wealthy white males protect their station in drafting, enacting, and enforcing their ideology. Mainly, that wealthy, white males are the only ones capable and intellegent enough to draft, enact and enforce laws. Read the Reimen book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. If you are really interested in how the system works.\n\nIn prior years, I would have said that there is no consistency in the american judicial system; that, infact, it was the most arbitrary and capricious system ever developed. Now, with manditory minimum sentencing and all of the well intended groups getting their special laws and penalties for newly rewritten laws to set out with specificity their group, draconian sentencing seems to be a consistency in the law. \n\nYet, prosecutors still hide exculpatory evidence and misrepresent the facts to the jurors to ensure victory and reelection or to move to the next political arena. Through the unfortunate situation of mostly poor people getting arrested, the system grind on...Its like this: The case is tried by the Judge which is an elected position (popularity contest) and he/she acts under color of authority for the State; the Prosecutor, also an elected position is also a State agent; if the person arrested is poor that person will be represented by a public defender....you guessed it a State appointed attorney. The legal process is suppose to be a rigorous testing of the facts and an adversarial process. NOW, you tell if the state hears the case (judge) and it is prosecuted by the state (prosecutor) and the defendant is represented by the state (State PD), I ask you where is the adversarial process. I would say that the consistency of law is that it does not apply (normally) to wealthy white males.
646965
To a certain extent, yes. No one really has freedom, money is power. If you aren't rich, then you have none.
904768
Yes neocons seem to think America is for them only to enjoy. Not for working class people. Let's see if the Dems can turn it around. I don't believe the rest of us were put here to only serve the rich and powerful.
348398
In America we have free enterprise and a class-less society. In other words, anyone can make money and be rich and be accepted here. We have no special laws for the rich and different set for the poor. Thats the American Dream. In China, Iran,Russia, and the French Revolution, they have a class society. In other words, if you were born poor, you will probably remain that way because the oppurtunities are not there for you to advance your status in life.
378680
No I think the US ignores it's 'lower class' people...richness has far more than money to it
1152397
the rich as well as the poor all have the same out come: death.\nThere is none having the advantage.
1146148
Americans, generally, hate the poor and are CHEAP!!\n\nThey rather blame them than to help them. If they can say it is by some character flaw then they can sleep well at night knowing a kid is starving to death!
297386
rich get richer the poor get poorer
417228
id rule swift and no mercy of crime and nicely to the poor....rich can solve there own problems
1116597
We began this chapter's investigation of distributive justice in order to consider the claim that a state more extensive than the minimal state could be Justified on the grounds that it was necessary, or the most appropriate instrument, to achieve distributive justice. According to the entitlement conception of justice in holdings that we have presented, there is no argument based upon the first two principles of distributive justice, the principles of acquisition and of transfer, for such a more extensive state. If the set of holdings is properly generated, there is no argument for a more extensive state based upon distributive justice. (Nor, we have claimed, will the Lockean proviso actually provide occasion for a more extensive state.) If, however, these principles are violated, the principle of rectification comes into play. Perhaps it is best to view some patterned principles of distributive justice as rough rules of thumb meant to approximate the general results of applying the principle of rectification of injustice. For example, lacking much historical information, and assuming (i) that victims of injustice generally do worse than they otherwise would and (2) that those from the least well-off group in the society have the highest probabilities of being the (descendants of) victims of the most serious injustice who are owed compensation by those who benefited from the injustices (assumed to be those better off, though sometimes the perpetrators will be others in the worst-off group), then a rough rule of thumb for rectifying injustices might seem to be the following: organize society so as to maximize the position of whatever group ends up least well-off in the society. This particular example may well be implausible, but an important question for each society will be the following: given its particular history, what operable rule of thumb best approximates the results of a detailed application in that society of the principle of rectification? These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would be to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them.
13591
Most Americans have great respect for everyone who is rational, productive, and self-sufficient. This also means anyone who does you harm should be served justice in the interest of protecting free principles.\n\nThe problem is that everyone BUT Americans seem to eat up whatever the media says, or they lack the education to realize that Americans are like any other human being. We live for our happiness and productive achievement, and we highly value our liberty and security.\n\nAny actions we take are a result of that love for freedom and that moral pursuit. We do not tolerate socialism, facism, or totalitarianism, but rather open and mutually beneficial relationships and trade.
850735
because the rich prefer to watch the poor suffer
225614
Unfortunatly NO.\nThere is in some countries, One LAW for the rich, and one for the poor.\nEven in progressivly modern countries, the LAW do'es not always seem to work.
1184579
Some days ago a Christian on Q/A explained to me that it is like you are condemmned by the court any some rich guy comes and pay the fine so that I have not to go to jail.\n\n\nI am still wondering why should i still have to go to jail after the rich guy paid my fine?
473674
the gap between the rich and the poor...
631886
NO! Not only is it a barbaric form of revenge, it's biased punishment.  How many rich, white Americans have received the death penalty for the same type of crime that poor or  non-white Americans have been put to death for?