Those that pick up a book, or watch a movie, or go to see a play at a theatre, recognize well, that each of the stories so told, has a beginning, a middle, and an end. That is to say, most of these stories, clearly have a final act and of that act, we so find the resolution and thereby the conclusion of that story told. In other words, “the end” for these stories, really is the end. For those that are poor, ill-educated, impoverished, un-championed and the like, they recognize intuitively that when they get in trouble with the law, for whatever reason, fair or unfair, that the resolution that they will thereby consequently suffer will be final and thereby there is no appeal for them to a higher source, or a higher court, for it is indeed finished. On the other hand, those that are well connected and have a wealth of money to draw upon, will in many a case, make sure that first of all, that they hire an experienced and competent attorney, so that, whatever that they so have to deal with, will be dealt with in a way and manner, in which the initial resolution will not be final, or if not, will be upon the terms agreeable to that person so accused. In other words, the rich get special considerations not available to the general public, along with often being able to appeal whatever justice that they don’t agree with, and the poor just do their time in jail.
No doubt, some cases, do have compelling errors that do indicate that a miscarriage of justice was carried out, and thereby are deserving of having such appealed to a higher court, for instance, for procedural errors, or for the misinterpretation of Constitutional law, and the like. Still, the problem with the appeals as so read by the general public, is the salient fact, that appeals, with a few notable exceptions for progressive attorneys to challenge unjust and unequal laws, is pretty much provided mainly as an aid only for those special few that have the ways and means to challenge successfully how the law is so being applied specifically to them. That is to say, there isn’t any “equal protection” under the law, but rather the law as practiced and exercised is clearly done in a manner that is diametrically different depending upon one’s class, status, and position in life.
We are instructed not to break the law, if we are unwilling to pay the price for such a bad action. Yet, that only seems to apply to those that have not the means to successfully fight back, of which, those people, for a certainty do pay the full price. Those, then, on the other hand, that have money and are well connected, are typically quite conscious of the law, as well as knowing that they often have the ability to skirt around that law, should it ever come down to that, and thereby are willing to take calculated risks, in the knowledge that the supposed downside for them, seems quite manageable. We so find, then, that for the small-time crook or miscreant, that three strikes signifies that they really are out; whereas, for the rich and well positioned, three strikes are an out, but they still have a lot more at-bats left, to still get a hit and thereby to get themselves home safely, and they often do just that.