Triggered by a recent story, there seems to be a common theme in media coverage that is rich or influential people (either directly, or through their family ties) getting away with crimes, sometimes as high as murder. In LA, this is most often associated with celebrities that have not been found guilty, not faced charges, or gotten lighter charges than people would expect, ranging from OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Robert Blake on serious accusations, to less severe infractions like driving under the influence or reckless driving, which seems to have been too many celebrities to keep track of. However, the idea goes far beyond the scope of celebrity, and two more recent stories seem to cover this. In one case, a man was involved in a hit and run when he hit a bicycle. In that case, rather than facing a felony charge, he faced two misdemeanors, and the DA expressed sympathy that Marty Erzinger was in fear of losing his job as a hedge fund manager after he struck someone with his car and drove off. In this case, the effect a felony would have on someone in such a job was a factor to be concerned with. A story with far more prominence is a recent one from Texas. A 16-year-old driving a pick-up truck while at three times the legal limit hit and killed 4 pedestrians. He has been sentenced to probation, but nothing more severe, and this has been met with a great deal of outrage, especially as the judge appears to be agreeing with the defense that the driver was, himself a victim. As a victim of 'affluenza' because he was able to get away with everything, so he didn't have a grasp of any consequences he might have to face for his actions, and so this would impact him knowing he shouldn't be doing what he was doing. That idea is getting a lot of backlash for excusing his behavior. There's a few top questions about this topic, to me. Firstly, are people that are financially-well off or well connected statistically more likely to be found not guilty or get a lesser sentence, or are these stories just more likely to be covered because their high positions make the stories sell much better specifically because people get upset about it? Secondly, is this from their ability to afford better counsel, or is this an actual action by the judicial system to treat them better? Finally, if this is a problem, what are the best ways to go about handling it, either to treat them more strictly, or to give everyone the same sorts of benefits in a court? Questions can be approached in any order, or feel free to go for a related aspect I didn't mention if there's other aspects to consider I didn't think of.