The laws don't have to be unjust for the enforcement to be biased and discriminatory. Even when the enforcement is unbiased, and that's a pretty big if, the consequences aren't nearly the same for the poor as they are for the rich.
Sure, but I think most people would agree that the problem is not that the law is enforced for poor people, but that sometimes rich people can get away with breaking the law.
That is true but I think there are also times when it isn't so much a problem of rich people necessarily getting away with breaking the law, although obviously this happens as well, as much as specifically targeting laws or the enforcement of laws that disproportionally effect poorer communities.
Another issue for me is that things like fines obviously carry a punitive function, people break a law and you want to punish them financially and deter the future behavior. When it comes to something like jail time, the rich and the poor are punished the same, again assuming an unbiased justice system. Six months in jail is more or less the same whether you're rich or poor. On the other hand, the punitive effects of a fine vary greatly based on your wealth. A $300 speeding ticket might be a lesson in the importance of obeying traffic laws and a minor annoyance if you're middle class. On the other hand, if you're living off of $1100 per month, that could be the difference between being able to make rent or not. It isn't that the poor should get away with breaking traffic laws, traffic deaths are a huge issue so they definitely shouldn't, but the punitive effects of the fine shouldn't be so vastly different based on income. I believe some countries, I seem to remember it being some Nordic countries, base fines off of income levels.
At the same time, fines are surely the most bening of all the things that hit poor people harder, since unlike rent or tuition fees they are entirely avoidable.
