if injustice exists for anyone, no one has justice, just temporary repreve from injustice. further, justice requires peace. "justice" without peace is how the people are subjagated. "peace" without justice is how the people who have been subjagated are exploited
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
578 points (98.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
41299 readers
494 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What autocracy and plutocracy are: functions of government are only the province of the privileged capable of cruel manipulation.
In other news: fire is hot.
As a lawyer with over 20 years of experience I can tell with confidence that there is justice in between the same social groups such as lower class vs lower class and middle class vs middle class. Upper class vs upper class is much more unpredictable, depends on many elements and it can go both ways unless one side is coming from old money, has politicians in the family etc... Unfortunately the illusion of justice, freedom and equality ends when you face someone outside your class.
Sounds like you have seen some interesting cases. Care to share?
I’ll tell you the craziest story I’ve known. It wasn’t my case, but I know the details well.
The guy was the son of a very wealthy family. He filed for divorce; his wife—refusing to go quietly—dragged the process out as long as she possibly could. Finally, they reached a settlement and agreed to meet in court the following day to make it official.
She invited him over for one last dinner. During the dinner, something snapped. He murdered her in a way that was beyond gruesome; he reportedly broke 13 different knives on her body. This meant he had to repeatedly stop, walk to the kitchen, grab a new blade, and return to continue the attack. To this day, as far as I know, nobody knows what happened to make him snap like that. Not even his lawyers. He didn't speak about it to anyone.
Naturally, his sanity became the central focus of the trial. His defense team leaned into it heavily, and he was sent to a panel of psychologists and medical professionals for a formal assessment. The panel's report was definitive: he was sane and fully fit for sentencing.
However, the judge said that according to the medical findings, he was unfit for prison and released him into "medical care". Despite an appeal from the wife’s family, the higher court upheld the verdict. He walked free, and I've met the guy in person. Seems like a normal, well-mannered guy if you don't know about his history.
Oh wow!
Sounds pretty odd that he was fit for sentencing, but not fit for prison. Do you think wealth and connections had anything to do with the outcome?
Well there is no other explanation for that verdict. Legally if the panel says he is sane and fit for sentencing he should have get a proper punishment. Instead the judge let him go.
Ju$tice.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
How do we sentence a judge?
You need irrefutable evidence to prove they committed a crime. The problem is that the legal system grants them too much leeway and "right of interpretation", so most charges don't stick. Even when something does, they are usually allowed to resign or retire quietly. The excuse is always the same: "to avoid damaging public trust in the justice system".
While there are honorable people in the system, there are also assholes who will ruin your entire day—making you wait hours just because they’re having coffee. There are so many minor infractions happening in a courthouse that would get anyone else fired, yet nothing ever happens to a judge.
Surely they acknowledge that every instance of corruption does more to damage the trust in the justice system than holding themselves accountable. What happens when this lack of faith in the system reaches critical mass?
Asking the real questions.
Any law that is solely enforced by a fine is simply a pay-to-do activity for the rich.
Some fines aren’t a fixed amount. Could also be a percentage of your annual income. There are ways around that as well, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Could also be a percentage of your annual income
But the truly rich have no "annual income" so wouldn't their fine be even less than yours?
The guy who sits at the back of a Phantom has no money or income so he pays no taxes, and he would pay very little fines. The guy who drives a BMW would end up paying enormous fines.
Yes, this system has exploits.
During vacation time, you can see other differences too. Strangely though, the first travels to a private island by a private jet. The latter would fly in first class and stay at an expensive hotel.
Anyone interested in this area check out Ted Chiang's short story It's 2059, and the Rich Kids are Still Winning.
Premise: In the future, scientists conduct an experiment to genetically modify poor children to improve their intelligence, so they have a better chance to succeed in life. While the experiment proves to be successful, and the children's IQ increases, they still fail to achieve social progress, because the entire state system favors the rich only.
Makes sense. Not just because our system is shit, but also because money is only up to a point a motivator for 'more intelligent' people and overall doesn't matter as much as intrinsic motivation.
There are a couple of studies on this:
-
Bénabou & Tirole (2003) – Shows how external incentives (including money) can undermine intrinsic motivation, especially in cognitively demanding tasks.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253 -
Cerasoli, Nicklin & Ford (2014) – A 40‑year meta‑analysis demonstrating that intrinsic motivation is a stronger predictor of performance quality than monetary incentives, which mainly increase quantity.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661 -
Morris et al. (2022) – A comprehensive review of the neurocognitive basis of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, showing that intrinsic motivation is tied to cognitive engagement and autonomy.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722001611 -
Kreps (1997) – Explains how economic incentives interact with social norms and why money often fails to motivate when intrinsic or normative drivers dominate.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2950946
Thanks. That was... interesting but depressing to read.
Anyway, here's the link in case anyone else happens to be curious.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Justice is a luxury the poor can’t afford because the rich pay to evade.
Where I come from, there's a saying that goes something like this: 'There are only two kinds of people in jail: the very stupid and the very poor.'
😢
Oh, this post is turning out to be a sad one.
Anyway, I've heard that mental illnesses and other psychological issues often lead to jail and only get worse in there. Modern societies are not at all prepared to handle these kinds of problems.
Insofar as "modern societies" refer to the people who hold power in them, I'm not so sure modern societies are interested in handling these kinds of problems.
Totally agree. It’s all about not being interested in handling these problems. That’s a bit strange though, because the current style is really expensive.
Justice is a spider web.
It's made to catch small bugs.
Bigger animals just trample the damn thing.
That’s a very good way to think about it.
That's why you all should know that Epstein didn't kill himself.
I wonder if he was allowed to kill himself, as an alternative to something much worse (e.g. being killed in a much more painful or gruesome way). It's clear that the truly powerful people couldn't let him testify against them.
I begged to know if justice
is a form far-out or in
he said son, there is no justice
there's just what
and that just is.
So that means I can start woodchipping criminals, right?
After all, there is no justice.
If there are reforms, I think that one of them is access to lawyers. Rich or poor, you shouldn't pay for lawyers. Instead, they are all placed into a common pool, where each side picks their representatives. If both sides happen to pick the same lawyers, they roll a dice in front of the court until someone has the higher number. That person gets the lawyer, and the other side draws someone else of choice from the pool.
I also think that lawyers should rotate in the role they may serve after every case. Prosecution -> Defense -> Prosecution -> Defense, for their entire career as courtroom representatives. If a lawyer refuses to represent, they are barred from serving as a lawyer for four months, and their refusal goes onto a common dossier that anyone can see.
This encourages the whole profession of lawyers to ensure that the courtroom is fair to both defense and prosecution, and that both roles are equally valid when it comes to reputation.
Regardless, if you are a defender or a prosecutor, if you want to win, you have to know how the other side works. New lawyer normally need to do pro bono (represent for free) in order to gain experience. Large law firm also dedicate a chunk of their business for pro bono, for public good.
There are many different types of lawyers out there. I'm not sure if it's helpful for an intellectual property lawyer to represent a person accused of murder in court.
Not saying I have an answer. Just something to think about.
The cost of justice is too damn high!
That made me think of a riddle.
The poor beg for my arrival.
The rich never want to see me.
The poor can’t afford my visit.
The rich pay to block my entry.
Who am I?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Hello, I'm not sober and can't figure out what this means. How do the rich "pay to evade" juice?
If you can afford fancy lawyers, you can exploit loopholes in the legal system. It’s not ethical or right or fair, but money makes it technically legal.
Also the Public Prosecution Office (or whatever one's country equivalent) are almost almost always arbitrary gatekeepers of the Criminal Justice System, so if they chose from somebody not to be prosecuted for something, they're not prosecuted and similarly, they can chose to crack down on somebody for something minor and that person will be dragged through the coals for it (they might or not win in the end, but of they can't afford good lawyers they'll probably lose).
So people with enough influence often never even got to court when they commit a crime because the public prosecutors simply don't prosecute, which they can since they have arbitrary power.
This is what we're seeing with all those in the Epstein Files, by the way.
Epstein Files is the most recent example of how the rich and powerful evade prosecution.
They know a guy, the guy they know also knows a guy and so on... In this chain of events words goes around from top to bottom to do nothing against these certain special people or there will be consequences.
And those guys who did nothing get secret gifts or have cushy jobs in billion dollar companies after they decide to go to private sector or get financial support when they decide to join politics.
Totally.
Also, it’s kinda funny to strictly follow this logic, because it means that the rich still struggle to get justice if the criminals are the rich.
When a rich person screws over another rich person, the one with more money will be able to inflict greater injustice on the other. Either way, this equation involves no justice, and people pay to keep it that way.
view more: next ›