's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

If you have enough money, you can get away with murder.(21 posts)

If you have enough money, you can get away with murder.MR_GRUMPY
Nov 11, 2003 12:40 PM
Interesting result in the Durst trail.
Why are rich guys always evil?TJeanloz
Nov 11, 2003 12:49 PM
Maybe it was self-defense, as he claimed. The jury seemed to buy it, and they probably know more about the case than you or I. Maybe he wasn't guilty of murder.

I tend to lean towards agreeing with juries, on the basis that they know more than I possibly could about any given case.
If you have to ask, you'll never understand.128
Nov 11, 2003 1:02 PM
Nothing wrong with rich, it's how you get and use it.

As for the article, I couldn't get through it.
Who knows what a jury will do or what the facts are.
And why don't rich guys kill more often?mohair_chair
Nov 11, 2003 1:06 PM
If rich guys really can get away with murder, you'd think there would be a lot more murders by rich guys. Poor killers sure are chumps.
they can pay to have poor ba$tards do it for them (nm)ColnagoFE
Nov 11, 2003 2:42 PM
If he was a poor nut-job, he'd see "Life."MR_GRUMPY
Nov 11, 2003 1:24 PM
Because he is a rich nut-job, he can afford the best.
The logic:TJeanloz
Nov 11, 2003 1:31 PM
Durst was rich, and could afford the best defense.

The best were able to convince a jury that he was not guilty.

If he were poor, he could not have afforded the best defense.

If he were poor, he would not have been able to convince the jury that he was not guilty.

Isn't the problem here that the poor have insufficient access to top legal counsel, rather than the wealthy's access to such counsel? Your argument seems to imply that the poor person would have been wrongly convicted, though the rich person can afford to have the wheels of justice correctly oriented.
It's kind of an OJ thing.MR_GRUMPY
Nov 11, 2003 1:37 PM
Maybe the "poor" should get the best defence, and have the State pay for it. (Nice thought, but can't be done)
Generally, I agree,TJeanloz
Nov 11, 2003 1:43 PM
I think anybody who is facing a serious charge should be provided defense that is at least competent. "The Best" is a bit subjective, but competent would be a good start - and from what I've heard of the situation, competent is not a given under the current system.
From what I read, it sounds like the "State" screwed up.........MR_GRUMPY
Nov 11, 2003 2:03 PM
by only asking for murder 1, and nothing else.
the guy admitted to killing and dismembering the bodyColnagoFE
Nov 11, 2003 2:40 PM
but that evidence was surpressed for some reason. sounds like another OJ...the guy was guilty as sin, but through some legal trickery from his high priced mouthpieces he got off.
I don't think it was suppressed,TJeanloz
Nov 11, 2003 2:48 PM
The version I read said that the jury was only allowed to consider murder '1'; no other charges, and even though they knew Durst had committed the crime and covered it up, it didn't meet the threshold for murder 1.
yeah...upon re-reading that is rightColnagoFE
Nov 11, 2003 2:57 PM
I guess they just couldn't prove pre-meditation. It does sound like the state messed up.
Texas is very strong on 'self-defense,' which is whatOldEdScott
Nov 12, 2003 9:28 AM
he contended.
same with ColoradoColnagoFE
Nov 12, 2003 11:01 AM
Recent local case. Guy gets upset at neighbor over a barking dog. Takes a bat and goes to confront said neighbor. In the process he breaks the guy's window banging on the front of his door with the bat. Guy inside blows him away with a shotgun. Guy with bat dies. Guy inside found innocent due to Colorado's "Make my Day" law. Moral: If you're upset with your neighbor, let the police take care of it. Don't go over to his house to confront him or you may end up dead.
The logic:critmass
Nov 11, 2003 2:19 PM
"your argument seems to imply that the poor person would have been wrongly convicted"

It's happened too often. The latest , most damning and largely publicized cases being in Chicago. The poor can suffer from grossly inadequate legal representation. The rich can afford expert lawyers who can effectively protect their client's constitutional rights against the power of the state. It's much easier for the police to falsely claim a confession, withhold evidence suggesting innocence, convince witnesses they are identifying the right person or manufacture or plant evidence if they know the suspect will not have an effective attorney.
But then you would think the mistakes and unfairness would cause more people to question the death penalty

The real cost of Dubya's lies
453 grieving families
Total U.S. wounded: 2279

11/10/03 Centcom: One 18th Military Police Brigade solider was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack west of Iskandariyah at approximately 7 pm
Nov 11, 2003 2:27 PM
My point is that the poor person was convicted (wrongly) because he was poor. There is no doubt that this happens.

But it is the opposite of the argument originally presented, that the rich "get away" with murder. It's really: the rich don't get wrongly convicted of murder. This is a stronger argument.

The issue that I see is that protections put into place to protect people with bad defense lawyers from being convicted (requiring overwhelming evidence, etc.) can be manipulated by a good defense attorney to win when their client is guilty.
Nov 11, 2003 11:59 PM
Money has always been able to manipulate that blindfolded woman with the scales. Guilty or not the wealthy have several important, if not decisive, advantages when it comes to handling the legal system. They can afford high bail, they can conduct their own investigations, they can hire the best expert witnesses and private detectives and conduct their own expensive tests. Just threatening to put up a huge legal battle can result in better plea bargains.
I think our criminal justice system is inherently imperfect because in order for it to work it relies on fallible people, sometimes intentionally so.
We seem to put a lot more mental energy into why a few rich people can manipulate the justice system to their favor (that has always been the case) than we do in why so many innocent poor people get convicted. But then people don't like to think of our justice system as racially and poor biased or that many of our drug laws are aimed at minorities (one example: federal guidelines call for a mandatory 5 year sentence for 5 grams of crack and 1 year for the same amount of cocaine powder).
In regards to the poor and rich and the death penalty Justice Ruth Bader explained it well:
"I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court in eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at their original trial."
"Not Guilty" is not the same as "Innocent."Spoke Wrench
Nov 13, 2003 9:38 AM
"Not Guilty" simply means that the jury did not think that the prosecution was able to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. Good defense lawyers are good at establishing reasonable doubt. Legal aid lawyers might be working legal aid because they're not so good at it.
I read today that they reopened his late wife's case (nm)ColnagoFE
Nov 13, 2003 12:53 PM
If you have enough $, you can get away with oxycontin addiction....nmbicyclerepairman
Nov 14, 2003 1:01 PM