The concept of justice is something that has been debated on since at least Greek antiquity. While many people throughout the United States believe in American Exceptionalism and claim that America’s criminal justice is the best in the world, further inspection of this system would appear to indicate that it contains a substantial amount of deficiencies. Not only do some people claim that it systematically discriminates against people of certain races, but other perspectives have even argued that rich people are able to get off easier when they commit crimes. The present research examines whether or not wealth is a major factor in determining the types of punishments people receive, and argues that not only are rich people frequently able to purchase more lenient sentences, but that the legal system operates as a form of institutional discrimination that perpetuates a system of power and oppression for the dominant upper classes.
When one considers whether or not rich people get off easier when they commit crimes, clearly a mountain of evidence has surfaced that supports such an argument. From an overarching perspective, one considers that the legal system is constructed in such a way that that wealth can influence a multitude of elements. The most prominent of these elements is clearly the costs associated with hiring a lawyer. The difference between having a good lawyer and a bad lawyer can make or break a defendant’s chances to succeed in court. Defendants who do not have a significant amount of money are assigned a public defender who oftentimes is over-burdened by high case loads and only able to offer a small defense. Conversely, high wealth defendants can hire expensive attorneys and bring in experts on various elements in the crime they were alleged to have committed and in the process frequently bring the individual a lesser sentence or an outright acquittal. While the cost of hiring an attorney may constitute the most noticeable element in which an individual is able to use his or her wealth to get off easier when they commit a crime, it is far from the only means. People of high wealth status typically dress and carry themselves in ways that are considerably different from people of lower socio-economic statuses. In the American jury system, such disparity amounts to prejudicial outcomes because the jury has a more difficult time convicting someone from a higher wealth status as they believe this individual is less likely to have committed the crime in question. The above-noted components are exemplified in the disproportionate amount of people of low-wealth who are on death row. The NAACP indicated that nearly all of the 3,500 people who have been sentenced to the death penalty in the United States have come from low-wealth backgrounds ("Does A Person's Income Level Affect”). The staggeringly high proportion of individuals of low-wealth status on death row compared to the proportion of people of high wealth status on death row, while not outright proof that being a person of high wealth results in your getting off easier for crimes, does strongly seem to indicate that this is exactly what is occurring.
Another important consideration related to whether or not rich people get off easier when they commit crimes can be see through examining prominent cases among celebrities in the news. This top-down perspective, while not grounded in strong empirical research (perhaps lesser celebrities or cognitive bias may factor into the assumptions), at least ostensibly appears to support the consideration that celebrities and people of high income statuses are able to game the system to their advantage. Of course, the most prominent example of this in recent decades occurred with the O.J. Simpson murders, a crime that was recently highlighted by the television show American Crime Story. A large amount of evidence existed that would have seemingly resulted in the conviction of a defendant that did not have the wealth of Simpson. In these regards, DNA evidence demonstrated Simpson’s blood at the scene of the crime, Simpson had a history of domestic battery on Nicole Brown Simpson, and witnessed reported having seen his white Bronco at the scene of the crime during the time period in question. Despite this substantial amount of evidence, Simpson’s considerable wealth afforded him the opportunity to hire many of the countries most talented and competent attorneys, including Robert Shapiro, Jonny Cochran, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, and leading DNA expert Barry Scheck. This sizeable legal team cost Simpson millions of dollars (the price alone indicating that Simpson himself believed that his wealth would equate to a lower sentence) and in fact did equate to his eventual acquittal. Lest one consider that Simpson’s acquittal was an isolated incident, a multitude of other celebrities have been able to use their wealth as as means of achieving favorable treatment in the criminal justice system. Robert Durst, the son of a Manhattan real estate mogul, has conspicuously been tied to a number of murders throughout his lifetime, including the death of his wife Kathleen McCormack and a number of years later the death of his longtime friend Susan Berman. Despite strong evidence pointing to Durst’s potential involvement in McCormack’s murder, he was barely investigated for the crime, and he was never convicted for the later murders. In Durst’s instance, the high-wealth status he had in society as well as his ability to hire the most expensive attorneys appears to be a substantial reason that the crimes levied against him were not followed through to a greater degree within the criminal justice system. Other notable celebrities, such as Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson have been implicated in sexual assault cases, including Bryant being accused of rape and Jackson being accused of sexual molestation. However, once again, despite seemingly strong evidence existing that suggested they committed these crimes, both individuals were able to avoid time spent in jail, although they did have to settle with the victims for considerable sums of money to avoid prosecution for the crimes. Ultimately, these examples appear to attest to their being a connection between wealth, social status, and one’s ability to avoid serious prosecution or even conviction all-together from crimes that people of lesser statuses would seemingly have been incarcerated for.
Another point that supports the argument that wealthy citizens get off easier from crimes relates to the understanding that in many regions throughout the country institutions and laws discriminate against certain segments of society in ways that perpetuate wealth inequality that itself feeds into continued judicial oppression of these populations. In a 2015 speech to the NAACP, President Obama himself indicated that a disturbing connection in society exists between wealth, race, and the criminal justice system ("Obama: Criminal Justice System 'Skewed By Race And By Wealth'"). From this perspective, one cannot simply consider if a connection exists between wealth and getting off easier from crimes – it does exist – but additionally one must consider the system that is operating to perpetuate the values and control of a dominant class of people. Cole argues that, “while our criminal justice system is explicitly based on the premise and promise of equality before the law, the administration of criminal lawis in fact predicated by the on the exploitation of inequality” (Cole 5). Of course, the most overt signs of inequality are those that are occurring across racial boundaries, and while race does not always equate directly to wealth, empirical evidence has shown that independent of other factors, black Americans are at greater risk of being poor than white Americans. Subsequently, wealth inequality become institutional inequality, as dominant society, with its higher incomes is consistently able to influence elections, align districts in ways that disproportionately support the majority society, and maintain control of education systems to perpetuate a system of disenfranchisement. Gold points out that while marijuana legislation had been stringent throughout much of the 20th century, such regulations began to change when white students began to use this substance recreationally in the 1960s and 1970s. He further argues that, “it is unimaginable that our country’s heavy reliance on incarceration would be tolerated if the black/white incarceration rates were reversed, and white were incarcerated at seven times the rate that blacks are” (Gold 8). Such forms of institutional discrimination have clearly occurred in the last decade in regions of the country where the shooting death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland and the shooting death of Treyvon Martin in Seminole County, Florida, where George Zimmerman was later acquitted for the murder, spoke not only to law enforcement overreach, but a system of economic oppression and racism that pervaded these regions and ensured that not only would the wealthy get off easier for crimes, but that the lower classes would not have the means of social betterment to achieve equitable treatment in these institutions.
In conclusion, the present research has examined whether or not rich people get off easier when they commit crimes. The research has argued that the legal system is in-fact structured in a way that allows for people of wealth to receive more lenient sentences than people from lower socio-economic classes. As evidence supporting this conclusion, the research indicates that people of higher socioeconomic classes are able to purchase more expensive lawyers and influence jurors to a greater extent. Examples of such occurrence have been identified in celebrities such as O.J. Simpson, Robert Durst, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson. Additionally, the research recognizes that oftentimes it is not only the lawyers who were making such a difference, but that it is form of institutional discrimination embodied in the counties and court systems that have resulted in a system in which the poorest individuals are consistently pushed to the bottom while people of higher socioeconomic power are able to influence laws and police behavior in ways that allows them to escape crimes all-together.
Works Cited
"Does A Person's Income Level Affect The Likelihood Of Him/Her Receiving The Death
Penalty? - Death Penalty - Procon.Org". Deathpenalty.procon.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 8
Gold, Alex. "Why Are Black Americans At Greater Risk Of Being Poor". Newsweek.com. N.p.,
2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
"Obama: Criminal Justice System 'Skewed By Race And By Wealth'". The Huffington Post.
N.p., 2016. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
