Hypothetical: For the same crime, should the law be more lenient on the wealthy/educated as compared to the poor/uneducated?

Avatar image for skcus_pmahcner
skcus_pmahcner

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Poll: Hypothetical: For the same crime, should the law be more lenient on the wealthy/educated as compared to the poor/uneducated? (24 votes)

Yes, for the same crime, the law should be more lenient on the wealthy/educated as compared to the poor/uneducated 17%
No 83%

You may want to read this article: https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/molester-nus-receives-probation-judge-says-minor-intrusions where it was reported that a 23 year old molester was sent on probation instead of the normal jail-time (for most cases) because "his academic results show he has the potential to excel in life". This is unlike most of the other convicted molesters.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO

This got me to think about a hypothetical scenario where:

  • For all/most crimes determined by the country/state, the maximum penalties written differs in terms of your wealth and/or education level. Two classes of people when it comes to sentencing a criminal exist:
    • Class A: Anyone who has a highly-accredited university degree, OR has above average grades (If he/she is still studying), OR has personal income significantly above national average.
    • Class B: Everyone else.
  • For a person who committed a crime for the first time. Whoever belonged in "Class A" has privilege of:
    • Getting a more lenient sentence
    • Gets bigger bulk of support from therapists (if needed) to ensure that he/she does not re-offend
    • Is also allowed not to indicate that he/she was convicted of a crime if an employment questionnaire asks so
  • HOWEVER for a repeat offender: Whoever belonged in the better "Class A" actually gets worse penalties so as to prevent people from "Class A" to abuse this privilege.

Rationale:

  • To help the economy. If you doom a poor/uneducated person because of his/her crime, the impact to the person's productivity and contribution to the economy would be much lower as compared to dooming someone who is richer or more educated. The richer or more educated had higher potential to contribute to the nation and therefore should be given a "better" second chance.
  • We should not let good talent go to waste. The highly educated and wealthy people had better capabilities and are in better shape to lead the country. In this world, it has been more or less proven that the elites often run the country better than any other class of people.
  • Highly educated and wealthy people are statistically proven to be less likely to re-offend, and giving them a more lenient sentence is to take into account this correlation, which only makes such a way of sentencing fairer.

Do you think this hypothetical scenario would be good for the country where you are?

Discuss.

 • 
Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It is never appropriate to discriminate against people because of their wealth or status. As the Bible puts it:

Be fair in your judging. You must not show special favor to poor people or great people, but be fair when you judge your neighbor. - Leviticus 19:15

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

7926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think that if the rich person is able to bribe you sufficiently then you should take the bribe and then sentence them more harshly

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

5918

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By dshipp17

The legal system is already structured so that it discriminates against the poor, and, a lot of times against someone because of race (but, more highly, based on looks, even though that's clearly being allowed as sort of an open secret that all races practice against each other, as well as others), in the United States.

If you're poor, that means that you can't afford an attorney. Thus, you'll have to have some sort of resourcefulness on your back. And, then, it bags the question: why is that individual poor? Being poor doesn't always equate to being uneducated, at the same time, contrary to what most people would prefer to believe. Most times it does, but not always.

And currently, at least, I'm an example of such, as I'm educated, but also lacking; I had to actually experience this personally in order to learn just how pervasive it is throughout the legal system. The reason for that is because the system screwed me in employment in both ways that could affect both white and minority: I was pushed out both because of race, which affects minorities, and because I'm facing blacklisting because of my exceptional resourcefulness, which normally affects whites, as if I'd acquired a high powered attorney, I would have been reinstated within a few months; and this can be really reinforced, when you're also being discriminated against based on looks.

But now, due to my exceptional resourcefulness (as evidenced by the longevity of my litigation), my case has lasted so long, because the legal system skewed me, but, I've been able to wiggle through situations that would have already, long ago crushed even high powered attorneys; but, the legal system is still trying to take months to figure out a way to skewed me over finally and conclusively such that my now known resourcefulness could not save me; and, I attribute my success to God, who I can call upon for both strength and help to endure. However, most people who are poor and with a similar background as mine could not have done what I have done, as I've been litigating for more than 12 years now, all on my own, post-employment, but even longer, when the time that I was employed is included.

Thus, the blacklisting and the way the system works, where someone can basically talk trash about you behind your back and have it be believed without much room for recourse, I've been unemployed. However, my resourcefulness has sustained me, where most anybody else facing my circumstances would probably just be on the side of the road somewhere; that's what's intended, but, I've proven myself to be a real life Mighty Mouse.

In a hypothetical just legal system which doesn't exist anywhere in on earth, I suspect, it would depend on the crime and a case by case analysis of the situation. For someone who is both wealthy and educated, I think the system should be hard on them for money related crimes. But, the legal system should usually be lenient on the poor and uneducated for money related crimes.

Case and point: now the legal system, as applied by certain judges of a certain political persuasion, does not distinguish the motive of a poor person who say commits something like credit card fraud or even shoplifting; but, the system should consider something such as whether a person is a repeat offender because they have no other way/means to afford housing and rent, versus a poor person who has done it multiple times to get a fancy pair of shoes or liquor and drugs; in these circumstances, the legal system in the United States works such that a person with no prior criminal history, academic credentials, and career success is likely to receive leniency, as they should; but, at the same time, a wealthy repeat offender would receive the same thing or better treatment, because of their wealth and their ability to afford a high powered attorney; however, if a poor person had these same conditions, they'd likely be rubber stamped by the legal system and would wind up getting the same treatment has a habitual criminal without any of these credentials, as they could not afford an attorney.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By jonjizz

no, if the law is unfair people will take justice in their own hands, also less people will respect it

Avatar image for alavanka
Alavanka

2800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Alavanka

What? No. If anything, they should get punished more. The longer you stay in school, the harder real life should slap you for making mistakes. Also, this is why I support bullying. Look at the dude's picture in the article. No way should a nerd like him be confident enough to touch a girl. Someone should have beaten the confidence out of this guy a long time ago.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
Lord_Tenebrous

2943

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
Lord_Tenebrous

2943

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Lord_Tenebrous

Of course not. Your economic status has no place in determining your sentence.

Avatar image for valorknight
ValorKnight

13050

Forum Posts

210

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

It depends on how uneducated or how poor.

Avatar image for arthur_morgan
Arthur_Morgan

1292

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@valorknight: what?

anyways, if a rich guy trys to give me excuses why i should give him a lesser punishment , im gonna give him a bigger one.

lmao, ppl complain about god being unfair but accept it from some random humans playing god based on money.

Pathetic.

Avatar image for valorknight
ValorKnight

13050

Forum Posts

210

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@arthur_morgan:

what?

If the person is so uneducated that they don't know the law well enough to be aware that they've broken it, I wouldn't give them the same punishment as someone who committed the same crime while knowing the law.

If the person is also or exclusively so poor that they need to steal in order to feed their children or something of that nature, I wouldn't give them the same punishment as someone who stole out of greed.

Avatar image for wolverinebatmanftw
WolverineBatmanFTW

2749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Of course not. Any system of law should be based on equal treatment for all.

It's sad that this even has to be a question.

Avatar image for arthur_morgan
Arthur_Morgan

1292

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@valorknight: oh , i thought you meant something else.

i agree with that.

Avatar image for darkthunder
Darkthunder

4162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Darkthunder

No that is so unfair

Avatar image for skcus_pmahcner
skcus_pmahcner

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darkthunder: life is inherently unfair so why stop the law from being unfair? Helping rich people and/or elites is a pragmatic act that would overall help the country to prosper.

Avatar image for skcus_pmahcner
skcus_pmahcner

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By skcus_pmahcner

@just_sayin: discrimination will always happen in some way or another so why stop the law from being unfair? Helping rich people and/or elites is a pragmatic act that would overall help the country to prosper.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin: discrimination will always happen in some way or another so why stop the law from being unfair? Helping rich people and/or elites is a pragmatic act that would overall help the country to prosper.

isn't the general concept of the law to treat everyone in a just and fair manner? If it is OK to use the law to discriminate against a group of people with some shared race or status then it would never be appropriate to speak out against those laws, right? How could you logically and consistently do so, since the majority said those laws were OK and you claimed the law did not need to be fair or just. If the majority changed and you found yourself in the minority, then it would be OK to discriminate against you. Right?

Avatar image for darkthunder
Darkthunder

4162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for insertnewname
Insertnewname

1624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

In b4 bill gates has a killing license

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

16994

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It is already like that. The poor get fitted with free (and often careless) defense attorneys barely scraping by and just there for a check. The rich will get the absolute best defense money can buy and a status to give them an edge with the jury.

Avatar image for aka_aka_aka_ak
Aka_aka_aka_ak

3569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Not wealthy/poor but there should be for educated/uneducated. We need to assess what the individual can offer to society, if someone is so well educated that hardly anyone else can do their job and if their job contributes toward the progression of society then a different law should apply to them opposed to some low-life nobody working in retail (for example).

Avatar image for wut
Wut

7871

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Wut

There is a reason the Greek Goddess of Justice, Themis, commonly used as a symbol of justice by a lot of nations is blind.

Avatar image for catlike
Catlike

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Of course not. Any system of law should be based on equal treatment for all.

It's sad that this even has to be a question.

And the responses to this question are appalling.

Avatar image for alavanka
Alavanka

2800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for macleen
macleen

3854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Considering we have a lot of rich drop outs and uneducated people as well as poor well educated people. How will you deal with them?