Opinion Essay: Money Matters In The Criminal Justice System

Do you think it is okay that the law can be influenced just because of someone’s celebrity status and wealth? I strongly believe this is wrong. There have been many cases over the years where the rich, powerful and famous have committed crimes but if punished, have received a gentler sentence and a sugar-coated jail experience. This is damaging the reputation of the justice system and has to end! Anyone committing a crime must face the consequences of their actions. 

Money matters in the criminal justice system. Wealth allows access to expensive, top-quality lawyers with influential reputations and allows many to negotiate ‘pay-off’ deals, “gagging orders” and settle out of court. Is this an admission of guilt from the accused or a sign the accuser was simply looking for a pay-off?. Many consider a pay-out to an accuser as a sign that they are indeed guilty and want the problem to disappear.  However, could it be that the amount of money required is so insignificant to the seriously wealthy, that this is simply easier than facing the stigma and media-circus of a high-profile court case?   Similarly, when an accuser accepts a payout, they are assumed to be money-grabbing exploiters, but perhaps the money offered is simply too much to refuse - especially with the risk of losing the case and having to pay the costs!

Take for example Lindsey Lohan, who was given a lenient sentence and luxuries while behind bars. She was sentenced to 90 days in jail in July 2010 for violating the terms of her probation but was released after 13 days due to overcrowding. While she was behind bars, she received preferential treatment, such as having visitors after hours and ordering special food. Cases involving celebrities or high profile cases often seem to go in their favour with not guilty verdicts, more lenient sentences, luxuries during prison and getting off on technicalities. 

It’s not just celebrities! In 2013, a Texas judge decided not to send a teenager from a wealthy family to prison after he killed four people in a crash whilst drunk.  The judge did not discuss the reasoning behind her decision, but it came after a psychologist argued the boy was suffering from “affluenza” (a term used to describe psychological problems due to his privileged life) so should not be sentenced. This stirred up a lot of conflicts as the victims’ families were outraged at the crime being blamed on his parents’ wealth. Would this be different if he was poor? 

Each year more than 600,000 individuals are released from prison, with around 450,000 of them re-arrested within five years  - many for technical violations or non-criminal behaviour. Finding a job or housing and returning to normal life after prison is difficult - especially for those with mental health issues and/or addictions. Job opportunities are restricted with most employers hesitant to hire individuals with a criminal record. A survey conducted by the Urban Institute found only 40% of employers were willing to hire someone formerly incarcerated, making it extremely difficult to support themselves and their families, leading some to re-offend.  Therefore, the rich again have an advantage!

Celebrities/the rich can simply resume their career and lives with little financial or social impact, whilst many “ordinary” people face ongoing struggles with basics such as finding somewhere to live!

The media can also influence how easy it is to return to normal life. Well-loved celebrities are more likely to bounce back whilst the less popular are targetted. A great example of this would be the Ant McPartlin vs the Caroline Flack. Ant was involved in a drink-driving incident and could have killed those in the other car. He received lots of support, overcame his issues with addiction and was able to return to television, even going on to win an award. On the other hand, when Caroline Flack was charged with a domestic assault, a photograph emerged showing blood on her bedsheets. The media automatically reported it was the blood of her partner, and sadly only after the pressure got too much and she took her life was it revealed that she been suffering from long-term mental health issues and the blood was her own from self-harming.  This shows the massive impact of the media.

Prince Andrew is a perfect example of someone facing no consequence for his actions. He was implicated in the Jeffery Epstein case, but was uncooperative but not held to account. Prince Andrew says he and Epstein were “not that close”, however, the pair attended several private functions together, including a birthday party the prince threw for Maxwell at Sandringham House in 2000.

Andrew claims to have “no recollection” of meeting Roberts Giuffre, the accuser, despite being pictured with his arm around her in a now-notorious photograph said to have been taken by Epstein. It was recently announced that he will not be extradited to America to give evidence in the trial. Is this purely due to his royal status?

Another example would be Michael Barrymore who hosted a party at his mansion in Essex hours before Stuart Lubbock was found dead in his swimming pool. Barrymore was never convicted of any crime, but no one was charged with the murder and he is still perceived guilty by many.  The media’s reporting of the case caused irreversible damage to his career and mental health, again highlighting their power.  However, without his celebrity status would Barrymore have been found guilty?

Popular celebrities seemingly face only minor consequences in comparison to those found guilty of the same crimes without the status. On the other hand, those who don’t fit neatly into the media perception of the perfect role model such as, Caroline Flack and Michael Barrymore may become a media target. Whilst it may not always go in their favour, it is almost definitely the case that wealth and celebrity status brings huge advantages over those who don’t, beginning with their choice of top legal representation- which is simply wrong!