Article Contributed on: 10/25/2007 4:15:56 PM
Does having a lot of money make one "above the law"? Does being rich make criminal activity any less heinous? Does money buy impunity?
It certainly seems so, at least to my eyes. After all, from what I've seen rich folks get away with, I get the impression that the rich believe they are "untouchable;" and can do literally anything their depraved little minds think up, without offering so much as a "by your leave" to their victims--or society--for their behavior.
An excellent example of this attitude is how O.J. Simpson literally got away with committing 2 counts of bloody murder: His money bought him a crack team of defense attorneys.
A more recent example would have to be David Copperfield's belief that his money makes it perfectly OK for him to engage less-than-gentlemanly pursuits.
Unless you live in a vacuum, you've certainly heard the reports that an unidentified woman from Seattle has levied sexual assault charges against illusionist David Copperfield, claiming he raped her during an encounter while in the Bahamas.
Initially, I had trouble believing this woman's story. Instead of reporting the alleged crime to Bahamian authorities immediately--as any rape victim should have done--she
returned home to Seattle before bothering to make allegations against the illusionist. If I were a cop investigating this report, I would first have checked out this woman's financials--since she may have just made this claim to extort money from Copperfield.
Except, I found out that Mr. Copperfield had already
offered the woman
$2 million dollars to keep quiet--and she'd
refused it! Makes Copperfield look that much more guilty, by my standards. If there weren't some truth to the woman's story, I'm sure he could afford defense attorneys who would make mincemeat of her claims.
And, if history is any indication, David Copperfield is rather thrifty when it comes to spending his money. After all, he did give his bride, Heidi Klume, a five-carat
CZ engagement ring instead of splurging on a diamond for his "beloved." When you're that cheap, offering $2 million dollars for someone's silence is no small charity gift!
Apparently, David Copperfield owns a "cluster of islands" in the Bahamas--worth some $50 million dollars--but, does that mean he's above the law if he commits a crime on one of his islands? And, would $2 million dollars make up for the physical and emotional violation suffered by a rape victim?
Perhaps he thought it was "restitution" for his behavior towards the woman.
While restitution is an idea that has its benefits, it certainly does not excuse the offender's behavior, nor release him or her from prosecution for their crime(s). So, Copperfield's attempts to pay off his victim to prevent his prosecution is more akin to obstruction of justice than it is restitution.
Then, while watching Fox News this morning, I heard that Copperfield--like many entertainers--uses a secret code to identify (to his staff) certain women in his audience that he would like to meet after his show. This technique certainly makes Copperfield appear a typically desperate male entertainer mooching for female groupie affections.
However, what of his behavior with those women who
agree to meet the illusionist after the show? What if this Seattle woman is only the
first to file charges against Copperfield? Just how big is this story going to get? The answers will come in time, and perhaps more will be revealed about this secretive illusionist than we want to see or hear!
I don't know about the rest of you folks out there, but I am getting quite sick and tired of hearing about rich people "
getting away with it!" Growing up, I always thought that--at least here in the United States of America--
no one was above the law. After all, isn't that what our country is about?
Remember this pledge?
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."
What do you all think that last phrase means?
Here, I have pasted the text of
Section I of the 14th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution:
"
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, how is it that rich people somehow have more protection from prosecution for their criminal behavior than the average citizen, based
solely on the fact that rich people can afford a better
defense?
After all, isn't that--by its very definition--unconstitutional?
Should we, as a society, demand some change to the way civil and criminal cases are defended? Perhaps requiring all defendants have access to the same quality defense, regardless of their abililty to pay for that defense?
What do you all think? Sound off, America!