Justice
The richer you are, the more justice you get
The idea of the being rich and getting much more justice is an idea which has been around for a long time. Social and criminal justice has always been dependant on how much money an individual, or group of individuals have. Two identical cases can go to court, and two different outcomes can be reached. The only difference in the ruling is due to the wealth of the defendant. However, is it really justice to commit crimes and not face any punishment?
In the past, the idea of social justice also followed the idea at hand; the richer you are, the more justice you get. It had always been seen that if an individual has lots of money, they always get the appropriate justice to suit their needs, and their social standing. Police would always target the lower class citizens to protect the wealthy. If the wealthy were committing the crimes, it would go unnoticed. As a result the poor followed lives of crime, encouraging a large police presence and large arrest rates. This was something sociologists such as Marx looked at explaining, and it can be easily seen that social justice has a clear link to criminal justice. (Roberts & Mahone, 2007)
Write (2012) states that “If the law prohibits rich and poor alike from stealing bread, and both steal bread, how come only the poor go to prison for doing so?” This is a phrase that sums up the idea at hand. Both classes cannot commit crimes due to the laws of the country, however only the poor seem to get punished.
Putting this into a recent perspective, the BBC director general, George Entwistle can be used as an example of rich getting so called justice. Entwistle allowed a Newsnight programme to be released including massive false claims of child abuse, but refusing to let a programme about Jimmy Saville be aired, which included truthful claims. This caused public outrage, however as Entwistle is of the higher class and holds more power, rather than facing the justice system for
The idea of the being rich and getting much more justice is an idea which has been around for a long time. Social and criminal justice has always been dependant on how much money an individual, or group of individuals have. Two identical cases can go to court, and two different outcomes can be reached. The only difference in the ruling is due to the wealth of the defendant. However, is it really justice to commit crimes and not face any punishment?
In the past, the idea of social justice also followed the idea at hand; the richer you are, the more justice you get. It had always been seen that if an individual has lots of money, they always get the appropriate justice to suit their needs, and their social standing. Police would always target the lower class citizens to protect the wealthy. If the wealthy were committing the crimes, it would go unnoticed. As a result the poor followed lives of crime, encouraging a large police presence and large arrest rates. This was something sociologists such as Marx looked at explaining, and it can be easily seen that social justice has a clear link to criminal justice. (Roberts & Mahone, 2007)
Write (2012) states that “If the law prohibits rich and poor alike from stealing bread, and both steal bread, how come only the poor go to prison for doing so?” This is a phrase that sums up the idea at hand. Both classes cannot commit crimes due to the laws of the country, however only the poor seem to get punished.
Putting this into a recent perspective, the BBC director general, George Entwistle can be used as an example of rich getting so called justice. Entwistle allowed a Newsnight programme to be released including massive false claims of child abuse, but refusing to let a programme about Jimmy Saville be aired, which included truthful claims. This caused public outrage, however as Entwistle is of the higher class and holds more power, rather than facing the justice system for