The wealthy 'make mistakes', the poor go to jail

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
I knew him as "Mr one-glove". The origins of his nickname were cloudy, but had to do with his legendary stinginess. He had just lost his company close to $1bn betting on mortgages. That company, facing massive losses from him and other traders, had only staved off bankruptcy because of the grace of the government.

It was late in 2008 and Mr one-glove had joined us at a bar, a group of disparate Wall Street traders united in an attempt to drink away a bad year. Near the end of the night, Mr one-glove leaned into the table of beers, and asked,

Do you think we will get paid well this year?


Mr one-glove was not somebody who trafficked in irony. Despite the massive loss, despite his company being bailed out, Mr one-glove didn't get fired, nor did he lose any of his wealth. No, Mr one-glove got paid well. Not by his standards, since he did not get a year-end bonus, just his salary of around $300,000. Mr one-glove was unhappy with that.

Nearly five years later, my life was very different. I left my Wall Street job to start a photo project documenting the lives of addicts in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx, New York City's poorest neighborhood.

A year ago I sat with one my new friends, Takeesha, at a small table in a visiting room in Rikers Island jail. Takeesha was in Rikers for possession of a needle and for intent to sell. Or maybe this time it was for prostitution. Takeesha is often in Rikers. Near the end of our conversation, Takeesha leaned into the table and asked,

Do you think I will get out this year?

Takeesha did not end up getting out; she spent another two months, held a total of four months, for a variety of charges that almost all ended up being dropped.

Takeesha was raped at 11-years-old, by a family member, and pimped by another family member at 13. She ran away at 15. She has worked the last 25 years as a prostitute in Hunts Point and is addicted to both heroin and crack. Her story is not different from many homeless addicts I have gotten to know: childhood trauma, often sexual abuse, followed by rejection by the family, followed by addiction, and then, almost always for the women, followed by prostitution.

Mr one-glove is not that different from many whom I met on Wall Street over my 20 career. He had upper middle class parents, was college educated, got an MBA, followed by a demanding high-paying job that became his identity.

What have I learned from knowing both Mr one-glove and Takeesha? Here's my one-line answer:

When you're wealthy you make mistakes. When you are poor you go to jail.

Yes, it is like comparing apples and oranges. That is the point though. We have built two very different societies with two very different sets of values. Takeesha was born into a world with limited opportunities, one where the black market has filled the void. In her world transgressions are resolved via violence, not lawyers. The law as applied to her is simple and stark, with little wiggle room.

Mr one-glove was born into a world with many options. The laws of his land are open for interpretation, and with the right lawyer one can navigate in the vast grey area and never do anything wrong. The rules are often written by and for Mr one-glove and his friends.

The story continues: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/wall-street-versus-poor-in-america
 
I didn't read the story to know the disparity here. That one sentence sums it up well enough.
 
A very good point that you made very strongly.

This happens in all walks of life, and kind of reminds me of Mick Jagger, as I just watched that interview with him in the early days, and it gave me a thing or two to think about. The first thing you notice is his outstanding intelligence and wit, but there's more to it than that. I'll try to sum it up quickly, but won't post the clip as I just did in one of the music threads.

Anyway, here in a black and white interview from 67 he's set up in a debate with representatives from the establishment who are concerned about the emerging youth rebellion they're seen as leaders of. So here he is, and in front of him is one politician, one priest, one aristocrat, and one editor for a major newspaper. All more than twice his age and professional public debaters. But they can't win over him in a single point or even give him much difficulty to come up with an acceptable reply. He's just smiling at them like they're making it too easy and his accent is also very aristocratic at that time.

I know he came from a "good" family and were educated at a an English public school were they can be made to be very intelligent (at least those who have a brain) and to really think for themselves. They get a lot more intellectual and challenging stimulation so they can end up many times more intelligent than the average person as the potential for intelligence is really cultivated.

Anyway, now that is one thing, that he took down all those guys so easily. But he also comes across as more aristocratic than any of them and I wonder how "good" his family really was. Maybe his parents weren't overly wealthy but I find it likely that he comes from a family that has had a lot of power and wealth for centuries. It's also well known that he liked to rub shoulders with the aristocracy and was well accepted, etc.

So he is a different and kind of confusing example of someone who (almost guaranteed) comes from a money background and can do anything they want. I mean, who has been more free in their life than Mick Jagger, and he's been able to earn a fortune and even been given a noble title if I recall it right. And still performs as a sex symbol at 70 years of age.

I find it extremely unlikely that something like this would have been possible for an average guy who came from nothing even if he possessed the same qualities. It's possible for someone to have great success without that kind of support from the establishment because they are very gifted or has special qualities that just makes them very loved. Like a gifted artist that just blows up, but not on that level.
 
There may not be an actual bias towards poor people in the eyes of the law, but it's a simple fact that the rich can afford better defence counsel.
Poor people are given poorly paid, poorly motivated, and poorly trained solicitors. Just look at how the death penalty is applied in the states: poor people have a far greater chance of being sentenced to death, and one factor is a lacklustre defence. We're living in a capitalist economy after all; money talks.
 
Our legal system is corrupt, You have to buy a fair tail. Even then the odds are still against you.

Without a money=no bail- you will sit in jail until your court date months maybe years.. ?

Without a money=you will have to have a public defender which will not work for your best interest. The people prosecuting you are paying his wage and eating lunch with him.

All evidence will go to labs that are hired buy the court to produce results for the court.

So with no money you sit in jail wait for a trail with a "lawyer" that works for the system trying to prosecute you. They tell you if you want a trail you will get a much more severe sentence and punishment when and if you are found guilty.
 
Welcome to capitalism. Where the rich (with the rare exception) continue to prosper, and the poor (with the rare exception) continue to live in poverty.

I've had several lengthy debates regarding this topic with others who don't see it this way. They claim that the poor continue to live in poverty because of lack of motivation, ambition, effort, and so forth. While in certain cases, this may be true, I believe that much more effort, motivation and ambition are required for an individual who (for example):

- Was raised in a violent ghetto by abusive parents who did little to support their children for whatever reason.
- Was the victim of bullying and theft by others living in the neighborhood.
- Was the witness of a murder, and threatened with death if the cops were told.
- Had little to no food on the table, or money to spend because the parents were addicts.
- Was rejected by classmates at school because of the desire to concentrate on getting good grades rather than skipping classes, hanging out and taking up smoking.
- Was rejected by the opposite sex because of the desire to concentrate on getting good grades rather than skipping classes, hanging out with the popular kids and acting cool.
- If arrested for possession with intent to distribute, had little to no support from family, and had to spend a long time behind bars.

In contrast, a child of supportive, loving, wealthy parents probably (e.g.):

- Received an education at a private school, or at home.
- Never experienced what it's like to have nothing to eat, or no money to spend.
- Never had anything stolen from them, or if they did, it was easily replaceable.
- Was regularly accepted by the opposite sex, mostly because of money.
- Never experienced what it's like to witness someone murdered, then being threatened with death if the cops were told.
- If arrested for possession with intent to distribute, had very much support from family, and perhaps never had to serve any time in prison.

My point being that taking into consideration how a child is raised into adulthood will usually reflect how that individual ends up contributing (or not) to society in general. There will be exceptions regarding this, however, in general, the rich do continue to become richer, whereas the poor are becoming poorer. And the wealthy are continuing to 'make mistakes', whereas the poor continue to go to jail.

As I said before - welcome to capitalism. And no, I am not a communist, but rather a humanist.

For those wondering, humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities.
 
. Just look at how the death penalty is applied in the states: poor people have a far greater chance of being sentenced to death, and one factor is a lacklustre defence. We're living in a capitalist economy after all; money talks.

That is true...to an extent. I got a couple of felony charges a few years ago, poss and intent to distrib.....first offense but was lookin at some real fucking time...I got a court appt attorney...he died. They reassigned me to this lady. I thought "oh fuck, I'm screwed". Well I show up to docket call one month....she tells me I can leave. I said ok, let me sign the docket so I can go....and she said that it was a "bad traffic stop" and got me off.
HOWEVER....I'm currently involved in some other court shit....and I have a really good attorney......spent a stupid amount on this....and it's not looking good.


So....it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. But for the most part yeah....if you're poor you're fucked. Get money.
 
In Arizona, if you're busted, you'll do your time in "tent city", a glorified concentration camp in the baking sun....If you're a VIP, you can opt out of this by paying hard cash for a far more civilized cell, with colour TV, your choice of clothing, and takeaway food; the prison system is becoming more privatized by the day.Or, as I like to call it Prison, Inc. I agree with many posters on this thread: "justice" is a fluid concept, and it can be fucking corrupt, to put it bluntly.
 
A very good point that you made very strongly.

This happens in all walks of life, and kind of reminds me of Mick Jagger, as I just watched that interview with him in the early days, and it gave me a thing or two to think about. The first thing you notice is his outstanding intelligence and wit, but there's more to it than that. I'll try to sum it up quickly, but won't post the clip as I just did in one of the music threads.

Anyway, here in a black and white interview from 67 he's set up in a debate with representatives from the establishment who are concerned about the emerging youth rebellion they're seen as leaders of. So here he is, and in front of him is one politician, one priest, one aristocrat, and one editor for a major newspaper. All more than twice his age and professional public debaters. But they can't win over him in a single point or even give him much difficulty to come up with an acceptable reply. He's just smiling at them like they're making it too easy and his accent is also very aristocratic at that time.

I know he came from a "good" family and were educated at a an English public school were they can be made to be very intelligent (at least those who have a brain) and to really think for themselves. They get a lot more intellectual and challenging stimulation so they can end up many times more intelligent than the average person as the potential for intelligence is really cultivated.

Anyway, now that is one thing, that he took down all those guys so easily. But he also comes across as more aristocratic than any of them and I wonder how "good" his family really was. Maybe his parents weren't overly wealthy but I find it likely that he comes from a family that has had a lot of power and wealth for centuries. It's also well known that he liked to rub shoulders with the aristocracy and was well accepted, etc.

So he is a different and kind of confusing example of someone who (almost guaranteed) comes from a money background and can do anything they want. I mean, who has been more free in their life than Mick Jagger, and he's been able to earn a fortune and even been given a noble title if I recall it right. And still performs as a sex symbol at 70 years of age.

I find it extremely unlikely that something like this would have been possible for an average guy who came from nothing even if he possessed the same qualities. It's possible for someone to have great success without that kind of support from the establishment because they are very gifted or has special qualities that just makes them very loved. Like a gifted artist that just blows up, but not on that level.

I couldnt have said it better myself!
 
Top