← Back to context

Comment by dragonwriter

5 years ago

> I am aware that this is not the 1950's superman definition of justice.

It’s not any definition of justice, its simply the rule of the powerful over the weak.

9 comments

dragonwriter

Reply
Filligree  5 years ago

For those living in America, that’s what they can expect. It does no-one any good to pretend otherwise.

  • dragonwriter  5 years ago

    > For those living in America, that’s what they can expect. It does no-one any good to pretend otherwise.

    Be that as it may, it likewise does no one any good to pretend it has any connection to justice.

    • threatofrain  5 years ago

      > I am aware that this is not the 1950's superman definition of justice. It is the "welcome to America" version of justice, that you often can't even get if you can pay for it, depending on who you are.

      > Be that as it may, it likewise does no one any good to pretend it has any connection to justice.

      ...because someone on HN is going to be confused by the witty criticism of justice, and experience actual moral or intellectual confusion? Does this not strike you as linguistic pedantry?

      1 reply →

  • aphroz  5 years ago

    "You found paradise in America, you had a good trade, you made a good living, the police protected you, and there were courts of law."

bostik  5 years ago

So, at least in the US justice system it's one dollar, one vote.

  • munk-a  5 years ago

    I don't think that's quite fair since the US justice system does allow for and has come to include advocacy organizations like the EFF and NAACP, and, even without those organizations usually individuals will end up paying significantly less for the same legal services (since most lawyers do have morals and will try and make their services affordable to less well off clients).

    But... other than those allowances... Yea, money is pretty important in the US justice system.

    • mijoharas  5 years ago

      I mean... those are organisations that are support a collective ideal.

      People that buy into that ideal fund those organisations so they can provide legal support to enact those principles.

      The existence of those organisations (or pro bono work) is not a counterpoint to the premise that the US justice system is predicated upon money (and the implied corrolary that the level of justice you receive is proportional to the amount you pay for it).

      (having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the flippant comment that you are replying to, but still).