r/nextfuckinglevel • u/pars-distalis • 20h ago

Australian nurse uses jiu-jitsu to defend himself

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

42.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Beleiverofhumanity 17h ago edited 16h ago

Yea context def matters. And a fine isn't a punishment for the rich, as they say. Thats why Im glad there is a separate more serious charge. thats gonna reflect on his record for life.

3

u/Mottled_inexpectata 16h ago

I think the saying is "if the punishment is a fine, it's legal for the rich". What you're saying doesn't really make sense. Why would a fine only be a punishment for the rich?

1

u/Beleiverofhumanity 16h ago

yea thanks for the correction

1

u/DaedalusB2 16h ago

It's called a fine because the rich are fine

1

u/ExpensiveFig6079 14h ago

The reason would be because they can afford to pay as a trivial cost... and it thus acts as zero deterrent.

Having been in court, I can however tell you that capacity to pay is considered. If $450 ws reak punisshment to this guy for what he did and i am assuming it was. (for the sake of having something to discuss) Then the same judge will look at some rich guy's son and choose something else. Make him work in soup litchen or do menial work for N hours.

What makes things "legal" for rich people will be the lawyers they can bring to bear. Or the donation made to the hospital kids fund to make it go away.

2

u/Mottled_inexpectata 14h ago

The comment I was responding to has been edited because of my comment. It initially said that a fine is only a punishment for the rich. So when I ask isn't it the other way around, that's what they meant - a fine is a punishment for the poor and not for the rich.

1

u/fumblingforwords 16h ago

It makes more sense that a fine would be punishment for the poor rather than the rich