Hacker News Reader

Comment by RansomStark | Hacker News Reader

> There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.

I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction.

In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer.

The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal.

So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else.

Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.

View on HN

Why should we push down wealthy people just because the poor have it worse? Would it not be better to focus on improving the conditions of the poor?

Because the rich won’t have any incentive to change the system otherwise.

As if the poor couldn’t vote to change things if they wanted to.

One of the worst things I've learnt about US, is that like the poor can't just go to vote, as it is not a public holiday but they need to ask for permission from their bosses? Like there are a lot of bad things I've learnt along the years about of US treats poors, and I think this one is on the podium

Voting is done at a local/state level in the US. 30 states mandate employer provided time off, while 20 do not.

https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/does-your-state...

Vote for whom? Which political party represents interests of the people who are looking for systematic changes in favor of the working class?

It's extremely hard to democratically enact change even in countries with multiple political parties and proportional representation. The US doesn't even have that, it's an illusion of choice with 2 parties who are equally corrupt.

If this was genuinely an important issue to even just the 38 million people living under the poverty line, they could certainly find candidates. If you count low-income people as poor, you’re speaking of something like a hundred million people.

The real problem is that people simply don’t care. People are much more willing to go to the polls over their right to own guns than issues like this.

Which they have been doing, as you might have noticed. This has led to lavishly-funded opposition aimed at splitting that coalition - note the sums poured into misrepresenting the SF DA, for example. The case of making treatment of the poor more humanely is more sympathetic so there’s every reason to believe that opposition to consequences for rich people would be _less_ well funded and more affluent people would find excuses not to support it, just as we’ve see for things like trying to get rich people to pay taxes at the same rates.

Conservative commentators everywhere would no doubt be delighted at the suggestion that all poor people should wait out an appeal in a $13k/mth mansion.

Wait out an appeal at their home. Rich people have fancier homes? Boo hoo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com