varjohaltia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
varjohaltia) wrote2005-06-04 12:02 am
varjohaltia) wrote2005-06-04 12:02 am
On Equality
More requests for comment -- I had recently read an article about the ability to pay $80 a year in order to get into a fast lane that can bypass the normal security at airports. That seemed wrong to me, and during my random driving through the Florida night I gave it some more thought.
I have been raised to believe in equality; if the Scandinavian societies have a social problem, it is the overzealous drive to make everyone equal. So, perhaps it is understandable that I instinctively feel bad when money buys one extra rights.
Now, it's obvious that the more money you have, the better things are. You can drive a safer vehicle and are less likely to get killed or injured. You can get the best, private health care. These things are easy for me to accept. But government providing differing levels of service depending on the financial ability of a citizen to pay galls me. Government is supposed to treat its citizens equally. And yes, airport security is a government function.
The one that left me in a bind was the justice system, though. Rich people can afford good lawyers, private investigators and are consequently much less likely to be convicted of crimes or loose civil disputes, while others may settle for basic lawyers or those provided for free. Everyone is not equal before the law. This bothers me -- but I have no idea how one could fix this. Ban lawyers and make everyone settle for a possibly incompetent public defendant? Bankrupt the state and pay for the best lawyers for everyone, on a first come first serve basis? Neither option is sane.
All of this assumes that equality of citizens, in front of the law and in dealing with government, is the ideal. Does everyone agree with that?
I have been raised to believe in equality; if the Scandinavian societies have a social problem, it is the overzealous drive to make everyone equal. So, perhaps it is understandable that I instinctively feel bad when money buys one extra rights.
Now, it's obvious that the more money you have, the better things are. You can drive a safer vehicle and are less likely to get killed or injured. You can get the best, private health care. These things are easy for me to accept. But government providing differing levels of service depending on the financial ability of a citizen to pay galls me. Government is supposed to treat its citizens equally. And yes, airport security is a government function.
The one that left me in a bind was the justice system, though. Rich people can afford good lawyers, private investigators and are consequently much less likely to be convicted of crimes or loose civil disputes, while others may settle for basic lawyers or those provided for free. Everyone is not equal before the law. This bothers me -- but I have no idea how one could fix this. Ban lawyers and make everyone settle for a possibly incompetent public defendant? Bankrupt the state and pay for the best lawyers for everyone, on a first come first serve basis? Neither option is sane.
All of this assumes that equality of citizens, in front of the law and in dealing with government, is the ideal. Does everyone agree with that?
no subject
I so totally agree.
I work in/around an area that caters to some of the most wealthy people in the U.S.
It scares me to know what they get away with...what they know they can get away with.
And it infuriates me that they can buy their own justice.
Small example:
The daughter of the owner of Parrish Oil...
She's 14.
Legal driving age in Colorado is 16.
At least, it is for the rest of us.
She got pulled over for speeding.
Not only did the cop not give her a ticket for speeding, he sent her on her way without so much as a "Hey, you're only 14, you shouldn't be driving..."
...bugs me to no ends...
no subject
Yes, absolutely. Frankly, I think it's not the "justice system" any more -- it's the "industry of law." If we want true justice and equality, we need to change how law is created, maintained, and viewed.
Currently about half our laws in the US should be struck off the books -- who cares if you eat an orange in a San Francisco hotel, for example? -and any new laws should have an addendum which says they have to be either dropped off the books in 5 years, or revisited to see if they're worth keeping. Because a large proportion of our laws are nonsense, politically motivated, or antiquated, the average citizen sees the law as an irritation to be dodged or ignored. Until we create only laws which are worthy of respect, no one's going to respect the law.
I could go on, but it's really late and I'm a bit groggy. Good points you make, though.
no subject
no subject
Just recently, a homeless guy bled to death from a gunshot wound, just outside the Emergency room to the Denver Hospital.
They wouldn't even admit him.