system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Finances/fame shouldn’t be able to enhance your favor in terms of the justice you’re served for said crime in America

For the most part, I feel as a country, we have a decent justice system overall. There are a bunch of flaws within the justice system, but there’s flaws in every system so that’s not my concern. My view kicks in with money. Money or fame shouldn’t be able to determine the justice you’re served or result in you suffering a less severe consequence versus someone who isn’t as stable financially having to take on the more intense consequences due to the fact that he/she couldn’t afford the top dollar representation. People don’t get me wrong, it’s obvious if you go out here and kill somebody, famous or not, you’ll be sent to prison and justice will most likely be served as it should be. But there are MANY cases where someone with money can pay their way to say, something like probation , versus someone without money actually having to go and serve jail time due to the fact that they couldn’t afford that top dollar representation. And I don’t agree with this one but. The law obviously differs from state to state, but I can provide many examples where a celebrity can do something and they’re able to pay their way out of that situation, versus a defaults citizen in that same situation, they would have had a different consequence. The law doesn’t say when you commit a crime, if you have this certain amount of money, you’ll get this etc. the law says you cant do so and so, and if you break that law, it states what is punishable for breaking said law. I feel this is unfair, and that many people haven’t been served fair justice. Just because somebody cant afford a top dollar lawyer, that shouldn’t determine how much less or more guilty they are for said crime. I feel we all are human and should all be treated as such. No one is bigger than the program. My post refers to something bigger than celebrity privilege because the people that can afford top dollar lawyers, at the end of the day they did earn that money. But I’m referring to when courts allow money/fame to help determine a consequence, I feel that’s wrong and it’s not true justice. This is my view.
gpt
Suppose you want to bring in an expert witness.  Who pays for that person's time?  The State?  Suppose you want to bring in a dozen expert witness?  Who then?  What's the cut off?  How much money is the citizenry willing and/or able to fund the defense of every plaintiff?

Would you prefer the State fails to bring people to trial because they fear the economic burden the defense could incur  on public funds?  The bigger the trial, the bigger the stakes, the bigger the defense could dig into the public coffers.

Maybe you think you'll put a cap on the amount of money a defendant can spend.  Well, that's pretty much the system we have through the funding of public defenders.  Maybe you think to make it fair, all defendants can only spend the same amount on a defense.  Okay, but what limit is there on the State?  And if a citizen can afford to bring in expert witnesses to refute the State, would you really want a system that prevents them bringing those witnesses forward?

At the end of the day, the reason why money can buy more "justice" is that any other alternative is destined to lead to more injustice.  The question is how much legal aid can we provide to the indigent compared to other systems.

If you can show me a legal system somewhere that is able to afford more resources to mount a legal defense per capita for the indigent, then you'd start to be on a more firm foundation.