Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
Because the law is supposed to apply equally.
|
A person with deep pockets can go into a trial with a top flight legal team, as many expert witnesses as they need and can have independent lab testing of evidence done. They can afford to hire numerous private investigators to go around and conduct interviews and gather any additional evidence that may that also means it's easier to get off a criminal case. They can even dig into the past of the other parties to try and discredit witnesses or to challenge experts (for example, finding out an expert witness for the Crown has a personal bias against certain people).
The standard to prove a criminal case is higher than a civil case. However, that also means that it's easier to avoid conviction in a criminal case. All you need to do is introduce "reasonable doubt" and you will be found innocent. Those with money can easily afford to create that "doubt" with their "team" of experts.
On the other hand, a poor person who can't afford a lawyer will get stuck with one provided by legal aid. Legal Aid lawyers don't have access to big budgets to conduct detailed investigations. Hell, they couldn't even hire an expert witness to help them out.
The end result is for similar types of cases the conviction rate for the wealthy is far lower than for the poor.
So I find it really funny when people talk about how the law should apply equally for the rich and poor. It
should, but the reality is it doesn't. So when someone who's "rich" gets screwed over (like these guys losing their cars) it shouldn't surprise anyone to read so many comments like "it's good for them" or "daddy couldn't buy you out of this problem, could he". It's just backlash for all the other stuff wealthy people seem to get away with that pisses a lot of people off.
Personally this case doesn't bother me. I could care less if they were rich or not. The only thing I'm glad about is someone who was way over the top in terms how badly they were driving got screwed over. In my mind, driving this aggressievly constitutes criminal behaviour. And using your vehicle criminally means it can be forfeited.
Sure the civil rights people will be screaming and yelling over this and bringing up the old "slippery slope" argument, but I don't see it going this way. I think forfeitures will be a very rare event saved only for the most severe of offenders. I doubt even one single person on RS will ever have their car forfeited over the years, even though many will talk like this is going to be a regular event.
If we start seeing a lot of regular speeders losing their cars then I'll change my mind, but at this point I don't see a problem with this. Hell, the guys didn't even go to court to stand up for themselves. What does
that tell you?