[rayiner]

Playing up the "equal access to justice" angle here is shortsighted. Rich people have historically served as an important counterweight to government. When the government prosecutes them, it raises special interests, beyond the abstract interest in justice implicated whenever the government prosecutes someone. After all, it was the new-money commercial interests that lead the revolutions that gave us many of our modern democracies, including here in the U.S. And history is littered with examples of rich, powerful people being prosecuted precisely because of the threat they pose by virtue of their means.

An interesting example is Joseph Nacchio. While he was probably guilty of what he was accused of doing, at least he was declared guilty after putting up the best defense money could buy. Given the dynamics of the situation, it would've been troubling if he hadn't been able to do that.

[iamsohungry]

Another interesting example is Stuart Gulliver, CEO of HSBC when they were fined 5 weeks of income for laundering money for Mexican and Columbian drug cartels. HSBC lawyers persuaded prosecutors "not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system." Gulliver was not tried for any crime after helping launder money for literal mass-murdering drug lords in a country where people are jailed for possession of marijuana. Given the dynamics of the situation, it's troubling that he was able to do that.

[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-se...

[2] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to-near-1-9...

[gohrt]

Why don't poor people deserve to be a counterweight to government?

[j42]

Because it has never been a question of who is deserving of what...

The poor have no leverage, and realistically, no one is going to give that to them.

We're not talking about an idealistic re-working of civic values, but the natural tension that already exists between private interests and the public sector.

One need only look to antitrust law to see why letting any single locus of control grow unchecked can wreak havoc on a market/economy -- I think we should appreciate the few checks & balances we have left, lest this notion of naive idealistic equality allows them to slip away unchallenged.

[simonh]

They do, but if they don't have that ability now then that's the problem we should be addressing. Removing the ability of the rich to do so won't magically give that ability to the poor.

If anyone here wants to argue that because the poor can't effectively fight government then nobody should be allowed to 'because otherwise it isn't fair', then please go ahead. But that's the logic of plucking out everyone's right eye because one person suffered an eye injury. If your idea of fairness is reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator, I want no part of it.

[brbsix]

I was looking around for a quote along these lines, but I think you've just expressed it quite well: "Removing the ability of the rich to do so won't magically give that ability to the poor."

It is quite easy to retard the success (or fill in the blank with legal defense, assets, education, IQ) of a group or individual. However bringing that success (or whatever) to another group is an entirely different sort of challenge, a very difficult one. There are rarely shortcuts and the most commonly suggested solutions often involve infringing on the rights of others. People don't realize this and in the quest of solving social problems with government intervention they end up creating even larger ones. Like you said, it results in pandering to the lowest common denominator. You see this very visibly with policies like "No Child Left Behind", but this sentiment tends to run rampant in leftist schools of thought.

[fennecfoxen]

It's not a question of desert. If rich people can't defend themselves with all their money and resources, how can poor people without money or resources possibly hope to stand a chance?