• AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    They need significant evidence to convict someone in court who is rich and powerful. They convict poor people with tenuous evidence all the time.

    • Devi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not exactly. It’s much easier to convict poor people cause they can’t afford a good defence, but even a bottom of the class law student can shoot down no evidence.

      That’s the issue with sexual assault in general, there’s often no evidence just by the nature of the crime.

      It’s shitty for the victims, but I’m not sure how much it can be helped.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s why they charge you with absolutely everything they can think of, which would result in 20 years in prison for minor offenses, and then offer you a plea bargain where you plead guilty to the original charge without going to court. If they can’t beat you with the evidence, then they’ll try to beat you with intimidation and the risk of fighting them is monumental. People with money can afford attorneys that will get those frivolous additional charges dismissed before the trial even starts. The public defender is too underpaid, too overworked, and too friendly with the judge and prosecution to offer you such aid.