No, the aim is to stop anyone being victimised. To give the poor the same rights as the rich, not marginalise the rich instead of the poor.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp
- Thread starter sherbz
- Start date
No, the aim is to stop anyone being victimised. To give the poor the same rights as the rich, not marginalise the rich instead of the poor.
Who said they were equal? Bit of a gotcha there, don't you think? I'm simply saying that being rich doesn't mean you can't be a victim, or a "real victim", even. It simply means they have privilege and means others don't.
You're the one segregating people into "victims" and "real victims". But just to expand on this, let's say for the sake of argument this case did rule poorly, and that the victim didn't see justice. If that victim, with all their resources, can't win a court case on merits . . . what does that say for the people without these resources? The idea of a justice system is to be, well, just. Saying abuse isn't "real" because they're bad and / or rich people makes a mockery of that principle, and absolutely eliminates any hope that someone without those means will get anything resembling a fair trial under similar circumstances.
EDIT: ninja'd by AQ, who as usual said what I wanted to in a lot less words, hah.
Forgive me, but this is just fanciful. The fact is that the rich have more rights than poor people because they are able to argue, bring and appeal legal matters that are simply not feasible for the average joe because they have the financial means to do so. The only feasible way to bring in a level playing field is a bottomless pit of legal aid. And you will forgive me for not wanting to squander financial assistance on people who feel offended by what what their neighbor wrote about them in a facebook or twitter post. A total waste of time and as usual, the lawyers always win.
This implies all victims are equal. They are not. Im not saying that rich people cant be victims either. Just that it is often the case with celebrities we are not really talking about victims in the usual sense of the term.
Getting back on topic. This is a pretty good article on why Depp lost in the UK and won in the US:
Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US
Experts say key factors included having a jury trial and his lawyers using a specific legal tactic.
www.bbc.co.uk
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The American trial was no more than a cheap popularity contest.
It doesn't imply anything of the kind. Someone with a Lego set has Lego, someone with a hundred Lego sets has Lego. They do not both have an equal amount of Lego. I feel like you're letting your (rather understandable) contempt for celebrities get in the way of understanding the impact on actual justice suffered by those without means (that you were originally talking about) is undermined by cases like this (because it establishes precedent).
Well, I agree with this bit (or at least the end bit). And I'm also thankful that trials like this are not usually put to jury trials and certainly not televised in the UK. The US operates under different precepts, of course. I still think though that a dose of marginalisation of the rich and powerful on these matters would do society some good. We are already far too litigious as it is.
A legoligarch
Nobody has suggested a bottomless pit of legal aid. Stop talking rubbish and putting words in peoples mouths. The fact is both Heard and Depp are rich but that doesn't mean either of them shouldn't get a fair hearing or that the result doesn't matter to them.
No, you're just saying it doesn't matter when rich people are victims.
It would depend on the degree of victimization. If they are generally still far away from the average, then it's not difficult to see why most people wouldn't care.
What I didn't like from the short clips of the trail that I watched, is that Heard became a meme and most of the dirt was about her. About Depp, it was stuff one has come to associate with holywood anyway - drinking, drugs, some violence etc.
And even on the violence part, the line was that Heard had been physically attacking him.
What I didn't like from the short clips of the trail that I watched, is that Heard became a meme and most of the dirt was about her. About Depp, it was stuff one has come to associate with holywood anyway - drinking, drugs, some violence etc.
And even on the violence part, the line was that Heard had been physically attacking him.
Lexicus
Deity
Didn't Depp rape Heard with a broken bottle? I get that you don't find Heard sympathetic but human beings don't have to satisfy your standards of being a good person in order to be victims.
As someone who regularly has words put in my mouth by forum members, I respectfully disagree I am doing the same. "Victims are victims" implies they are one and the same. The list of both Heards and Depps accusations are long and cover many different things. But we only ever got to hear about them in this trial. Which is odd if you ask me. As surely their degree and severity would warrant a full criminal trial on their own. Instead they get brought up over the loss of film royalties. Which betrays their true significance in my opinion.
Similar threads
