Young and poor can take on the rich and powerful

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by JIMMY12345, Jan 7, 2022.

  1. JIMMY12345

    JIMMY12345 New Member

    Dec 30, 2021
    Likes Received:
    The young and poor oft not often take on the rich and powerful. It costs too much. Lawyers (decent ones anyway come not cheap).

    Lets be fair.In turn the powerful and rich in a minority of cases are at the mercy of the unscrupulous. I know you will find this difficult to believe. Some plaintiff's are purely after money and lots of it.

    So how to reconcile the two? The plaintiff could agree ahead of trial to donate ALL future potential damages minus expenses to a holding fund. This would be overseen by the judicial system. It would be used to help the so many other poor and young to prosecute like cases. This would help the plaintiff to win the case. Especially where direct evidence is weak or does not exist due to the passage of time. They could very plainly demonstrate to juries the absent of financial gain. Also to reinforce purity of motive.

    I have ridden with many female cyclists. They radiate an inner beauty. This comes not from good looks or or superlative IQ’S. Its more the honest dogged determination in their eyes as they spin the pedals on their bikes. They spurn the very idea of filthy lucre.The springboard of my proposal.Admittedly they do race their fast bikes against my old trusty 531.(Spending money on speedy cycles is of course an allowed exception).

    In 1989 5 Black/Hispanic were sentenced for the rape of a jogger in Central park New York. There was a very crucial element in the case. There was no DNA evidence or indeed any evidence. Former President Trump personally waded in.He spent over £100k on newspaper ads. He said the death penalty was too good. He was right. Good for him. The poor lady was left in a coma and had a broken eye socket. The 5 got very lengthy jail terms. Justice triumphs.

    The only problem is. It was justice denied The 5 were later found to be innocent. Unless one convicts on solid evidence egg DNA rather than speculation on mathematical probability of guilt. We all fall into a trap. Everyone has a right to be presumed innocence until proven guilty.

    We have a current case of a VIP. One fortunate or maybe as in this case unfortunate enough to be a prince.
    One just moves to the opposite end of the spectrum. Castigate not the poor but the rich.

    Science would judge with the passage of time you really can't prove guilt or innocence in potential court cases like this. Pass on any verdict that's going to be in anyway fair. The legal system is different. It will eventually conjure up a decision. The decision will rest to some degree on just how expensive the lawyers on each side choose to engage. I trust science more. it isn’t biased. It does not railroad juries into arbitrary decision. It just selects truth but and here’s the catch - ONLY WHERE IT CAN.

    If a plaintiff's only motive is to expose monsters.They will have no problem in handing over the the readies.It will help their case.Significantly.

    PS The US public remains bemused by the Trump intervention. Some past cavalier remarks made about women and their rights would lead one to suspect he was not not really ideal candidate to comment. However I remain totally sure he would never have any personal involvement or even associate with any of the people in a sordid case like this one.
    #1 JIMMY12345, Jan 7, 2022
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2022