A Plan for better Equality Under the Law

Money allows the wealthy to break the law by simply paying their way out. I'm not talking about bribes and kickback money either. Having fines or any other kind of payment based system of punishment for breaking the law doesn't work for what we are trying to accomplish which is the truest system of Justice we can create.

This isn't even close to "Equal under the Law" since all things being equal, two people with the same conviction should be subject to the form of punishment on equal terms. So as long as we have a system of punishment that has money as it's primary source of compensation it will by it's very design create all manner of easily accessible ways for the wealthy people of society to act illegally. While at the same time punishing the poorer members with unreasonable hardship.

This is neither Equal Protection nor protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Instead we should have some sort of "merit or point system" which applies to each person. When you break the law you accumulate points and at a certain amount some method of restitution or punishment is applied other than money. If it's community service, then that's what you do. Rich or poor doesn't matter. You put in your time the same as anyone else and nobody gets to just buy their way out.

Allowing one's bank account to suffer the consequences of the persons actions doesn't effect people the same at all. There are a million and one ways we allow money to corrupt every system we have when there are better methods with more equal treatment.

Violent Crime should result in Prison and possible Rehabilitation. Non-Violent Crime would have to be expansive to cover the various crimes of course but should apply the same for everyone since "Doing Time" is the same for everyone. We all "spend time" at the same rate and speed therefor your time is what should be taken away from you and devoted to paying back if possible or Rehabilitation or something for the crimes committed.

Maybe it's not perfect but it's better than what we have now. It's certainly a more equal form of Justice than fines or paying your way like it is now.

What do ya think???

Feel free to expand on this if you have something to add for a more complete theory. Or point out the problems you see with this method over what we have now. Or let's hear any other methods you have that are unique.

a reply to: mOjOm

because there are plenty of 'innocents' who are doing time in prison. BUT

USA top 5 money grabber is putting people in jail. Why stop? Money money money money money

Money, get rid of it. We can't just help each other? Money money money money money.

Nope, i need $$$$ to fill my gas tank.

# this world man.....

a reply to: mOjOm

A quality OP. Thanks for bringing attention to this issue.

It just blows my mind that the difference between going to jail or walking away with no conviction, usually all depends on how much you can afford to spend on a lawyer.

There really needs to be a standardized form of justice, where all criminal acts are treated the same, no matter what social (or economic) status you belong too.

a reply to: mOjOm

hi m0j0m....great idea...

shame we wont be able to impliment the plan til after the revolution!!!

stay safe

The O.J. Simpson trial showed us all how money can get you off the hook for murder. That circus was pounded into us on a daily basis on T.V. for a really long time while is was on going.

If you have the cash and a dream team of lawyers, you can walk away free a raging murderer. That was a clear message everyone should have learned at that time.

a reply to: mOjOm

I applaud you for applying energy to the solution.

Equal under the law is impossible when there are so many laws and the laws are at the discretion of the thugs that enforce.
Step one is clearing 80% of the laws from the books. Followed by the firing of 80% of the thugs.

a reply to: mOjOm

Your plan is fatally flawed because applying points to a person must only come as a result of a conviction. If you apply points to a person simply for an accusation, what is to stop 500,000 people from accusing a celebrity or politician they don't like just to rack up their points? If points are coming from a conviction, then those convictions would have already resulted in jail time if the person were convicted. Instead, the person is beating the charges because their lawyer makes better arguments.

If you're instead saying that convictions which normally result in fines now result in points+fines, you are simply giving the rich person another out, where they will plead guilty to a crime with a ratio of a high fine and low points (if they plan to be in court for it a lot) in a plea bargain. For example, rather than trying to fight the domestic violence charge where their spouse "fell down the stairs" and face 10 years in jail and 5 points on attempted murder, where they would normally plead to assault and change it to 6 months probation and 15 points they'll instead plead guilty to violating a noise ordinance which is $10,000 and 1 point. If you really want to get creative, plea charges can be to any crime, even to something completely unrelated to the initial charge. Therefore there will be something that's high cost and low points for people to plea guilty to. Maybe "degeneracy" which carries a fine between $2500 and $100,000 and always 1 point. It wouldn't take states long to get a general charge on the books.

At the same time, the poor person would now be serving time twice. The first time for being found guilty of their charge, and then the second time for racking up points.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
The O.J. Simpson trial showed us all how money can get you off the hook for murder. That circus was pounded into us on a daily basis on T.V. for a really long time while is was on going.

If you have the cash and a dream team of lawyers, you can walk away free a raging murderer. That was a clear message everyone should have learned at that time.

And yet, OJ may very well have been innocent, and thus his not guilty verdict was warranted. In hindsight we know that Cochran's argument that the forensics were of dubious value have been proven true through their application in many thousands of other cases, and there is a very solid theory (which you can read about on these forums actually) that it was actually OJ's son who committed the crimes, and OJ was merely covering that up.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, I'm not saying to have points and fines. I'm saying remove the fines. You may not even need to point system at all, like I said this is just an idea. But the idea is that you remove "payments" as part of the sentence/punishment. Now if part of the conviction is to pay back money you stole or damaged property then that would still apply. That would go regardless of wealth since that is in addition to a punishment. However, you remove all other methods such as fines that are for criminal misconduct.

You would also need to remove other ways of using money to slant the system of justice. Because the fact is that right now the way things are, if you have lots of money you can literally commit serious offenses and simply pay fines for them.

I'm not saying I have all the details worked out or anything. I'm just trying to get some dialog going to discuss the fact that we have no justice system at all. There is no justice for anyone because the law isn't being applied equally and by allowing money as the means of Repayment to society it is impossible to even apply it equally because it's indirectly conditional to one's wealth. So if you're rich you can commit crimes without worry knowing you'll just pay your way out. Which is really no different then buying a permit to legally commit a crime. Only it's reversed so you pay after rather than before. Is that a system that is anything near Justice??? I don't think so.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aazadan

No, I'm not saying to have points and fines. I'm saying remove the fines. You may not even need to point system at all, like I said this is just an idea. But the idea is that you remove "payments" as part of the sentence/punishment. Now if part of the conviction is to pay back money you stole or damaged property then that would still apply. That would go regardless of wealth since that is in addition to a punishment. However, you remove all other methods such as fines that are for criminal misconduct.

You would also need to remove other ways of using money to slant the system of justice. Because the fact is that right now the way things are, if you have lots of money you can literally commit serious offenses and simply pay fines for them.

I'm not saying I have all the details worked out or anything. I'm just trying to get some dialog going to discuss the fact that we have no justice system at all. There is no justice for anyone because the law isn't being applied equally and by allowing money as the means of Repayment to society it is impossible to even apply it equally because it's indirectly conditional to one's wealth. So if you're rich you can commit crimes without worry knowing you'll just pay your way out. Which is really no different then buying a permit to legally commit a crime. Only it's reversed so you pay after rather than before. Is that a system that is anything near Justice??? I don't think so.

Again, you'll simply find that those with the money to purchase lawyers that have good relationships with the prosecutor (usually because they can prove formidable in court) will get their clients plea bargains to the lowest possible point offenses and what you'll then have is the same offense committed by a poor person carries a higher penalty than when committed by a rich person.

I'll give you a better idea, and this is something that's actually in use in many European countries already. Rather than have fines set at a specific rate, which is effectively making the poor pay more and the rich who can easily afford them pay less, make the fines a percentage of income. For example, if you run a red light it's 2% of your monthly income, driving on an expired license is 10%, first shoplifting offense is 25%, and so on. It's easy to implement and hits people of different income levels at closer to the same rates.

As far as the rest goes, prosecutors actually have really low conviction rates, around 60% and they have considerable advantages such as generally facing off against public defenders. If you really want to level the playing field beyond penalties once convicted and start letting people successfully fight off charges you can do two things.
1. Eliminate public defenders as a profession and make all defense lawyers participate, then fine the ones who win cases in public defense at a much lower rate than their usual cases.
2. Start teaching free law classes. Give students in high school classes on the law, not just on what they are but how to argue their case. Offer free classes in the community for common legal issues, focusing mostly on defense and occasionally on how to present a case.

One could make a reasonable argument for that matter that both #1 and #2 are required by the US constitution (which makes it relatively easy to get implemented). If you accept the argument that people have the right to self determination then you must also accept that they should be given the training to make their own proper legal defense as part of a right to counsel.

a reply to: mOjOm

better equity under the law would mean that all fines are expressed as a percentage of the guilty persons earnings over the last 12 months, or perhaps net worth.

There is a reason all fines are expressed in dollar terms and that's because its the same for everyone so that's fair isn't it? Wrong, a $200 fine is enough to make some people homeless or fail to ensure their care or buy food etc while for others it's the source of a laugh around the restaurant table.

if fines were expressed as a percentage of the last 12 months earnings . or as a percentage of net worth, it would have the same punitive effect on everybody wouldn't it and that's the objective of justice is it not?

a reply to: Azureblue

That's good, I like it. I was thinking about that too at first. There are still ways of cheating that however by simply shifting what you actually make away from you and into some corporate account or something like that. I know people that own businesses that live very very well, but do so through corporate accounting. They pay themselves a very small amount personally and run everything else through their business whenever possible. This allows them to pay low taxes and officially make only poverty level income, while actually making much more.

But I like your idea. That is exactly the stuff I was talking about. Some new ideas!

a reply to: mOjOm

You're never going to fix that, as long as money holds power it will be able to be used for an advantage. It has however worked well in Switzerland and to a lesser extent Finland. There is a famous case where a man paid over $1 million for a speeding ticket because he was extremely wealthy, said to hell with the laws, and decided to drive at 60 through residential area where the limit was 30 (kph not mph, Switzerland has low speed limits).

a reply to: Aazadan

You're right, it will always effect things somehow.

All too often it seems that countries like Switzerland have better ideas and more functional systems working but Americans are so damn stubborn to admit they might have something wrong and won't look to others for good ideas. So we all just live through massive abusive systems that don't work out of Pride, Ignorance and Stubbornness. It's so damn stupid.

a reply to: mOjOm

The reason is because the citizens of many countries in Europe don't fear their governments. They see government as an expression of the people, and seek to elect competent officials that can empower their government to do it's job.

In the US we take an opposite approach, where popular campaign rhetoric is along the lines of "government is dysfunctional, so elect me and I will dismantle the government to make it even more dysfunctional"

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Azureblue

That's good, I like it. I was thinking about that too at first. There are still ways of cheating that however by simply shifting what you actually make away from you and into some corporate account or something like that. I know people that own businesses that live very very well, but do so through corporate accounting. They pay themselves a very small amount personally and run everything else through their business whenever possible. This allows them to pay low taxes and officially make only poverty level income, while actually making much more.

But I like your idea. That is exactly the stuff I was talking about. Some new ideas!

perhaps they could take into account the house the defendent lives in, their life style, how often they travel etc. there are issues but they are not insurmountable but should the suggestion get air play you can bet your life all these reasons why it cant be done will get ratted off. We should not aoolow that to deter us in desire to create a more equitable world, Lets not get fooled twice over the same matter.