[lovich]

De jure? Nothing, as written the law applies equally to all.

De facto? Just observe how often the rich are convicted for their crimes. Even in the rare cases that they are jailed, the severity of the sentence is usually much lower than the common man. Look at Musk himself, he already agreed to not tweet about tesla without the boards approval in an agreement with the SEC to avoid punishment, then routinely ignored it and just fought them in court until he won. Our system allows for anyone with enough money to run out the clock until they either win, the other side gives up, or the situation no longer matters and the case is dropped.

[rot13xor]

Money lets you put weight on the scale to tip it in your favor, but it doesn't let you fully control the outcome. Especially because in this case Musk screwed over other rich people.

[lovich]

I’m being a little bit flippant here and I apologize in advance if it comes off as abrasive, but I think this image shows a good example of the difference between how regular people interact with the law, how the upper class interact with the law, and how the Uber wealthy like musk interact with the law[1].

If you have what is effectively infinite money as far as the system is concerned, you can break through any barrier

[1] https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-954cf5204ca388a11909bb...

[listenallyall]

> until he won

He won. He prevailed. In court. Whatever you think he did that violated the SEC's order, is not correct, at least in the eyes of the judge or the jury who heard all the evidence and decided the case.

Rich people do have the benefit of hiring excellent lawyers and affording every available opportunity to appeal. But that is not being "above the law," that is the law. At the end of the day, if Musk won even on the 10th appeal or whatever, then you can't say that he committed a crime.

[brokenkebab2]

Is there are some sort of stats to observe? Genuinely curious

[lovich]

If you are requesting stats to observe this then I believe you either need to start looking around more in how your society runs or you are sealioning[1] me.

This is like asking for proof that the sky is blue. Perfectly acceptable in an academic context where the laws of physics are being defined at an extremely technical level. However if you’re asking a question like this in the context of every day life, it’s difficult to believe that you are asking in good faith.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[brokenkebab2]

I'm asking in good faith, of course. You wrote "just observe how often", and "how often“ is measurable. So there must be a record. I don't observe much crimes at all in my everyday life. Likely my life is not a good sample, but it just to point out to the obvious fact that what you belive to be an obvious fact may not be an obvious fact, but a political bias instead

[lovich]

“How often” as used in colloquial English is not measurable because colloquial English is not a technical language and this isn’t a technical discussion.

Finding examples of the rich getting away with crimes that regular people do not get away with is a simple google search away which is why you come off as sealioning.

On the off chance that you are legitimately asking, here are a few examples

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/06/09/s-c-joh...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza

[3] musk agreeing to stop tweeting about tesla without board certification of the tweet and then doing so anyway

[brokenkebab2]

>"How often” as used in colloquial English is not measurable

So what "observe how often" means then in your colloquial English?

I legitimately asked about stats. On this forum I presume you know what it is, how it's different from anecdotes. And it makes your behavior look not particularly honest.

You could have sincerely answer: "I have no data, but I have a gut geeling/impression" - that would spare you from wiggling around, and claiming that English is not to express facts.

[lovich]

Let me be clear here then, “how often” for me is any time the law protects the rich at an extent that the rest of the citizenry do not get.

Did you ignore the links? The Johnson and Johnson heir is anecdata yea but the affluenza defense is an actual used in the court and accepted defense. I don’t need stats in this case when I can point to a single legal precedent

[edgyquant]

When you start arguing English instead of backing up claims it’s time to admit you’re talking out your ass

[lovich]

Don’t agree, he made a claim on the intent of my words that does not exist. I’m not required to accept it just because you don’t like defining terms.

Additionally did you ignore the links I provided with evidence?

[edgyquant]

No it isn’t like asking for proof that the sky is blue. You are making an objectively false claim, that people toss it around all the time and/or you truly believe does not change that.

[lovich]

“Look how often” is a subjective English term people use to ask people to look at the situation and not an invitation to provide statistical analysis. Given that the rule of law is supposed to be applied equally I am pissed at even a single instance but here I provided you with both a link to a case where the protection due to their wealth was terrible in the magnitude of the protection and then a link to the legal defense admitted into court explicitly defining that they needed extra protection due to their wealth.

But let’s get to the heart of where I expect you to take this thread.

Is there any sort of evidence that you would accept that the rich get greater protection in our legal system? Or is it just not possible in your world view?