The whole concept of equity at law is contrary to what you described. In legal systems descended from English tradition, fairness trumps codified or common law.

Ok, sure - but I suspect fairness in that sense means 'make sure this person isn't being treated (by the legal system) differently from someone else due to a technicality'.

Based on the phrasing, I suspect jessaustin was taking more of a 'justice for these bankrupt immigrants at the expense of Subway and their execs'. The judge would have looked at the bankrupt immigrants, seen people who deserved justice, then looked at Subway and its execs and seen another group of people who deserve justice and then made a decision most consistent with how such cases are handled.

Being deserving in the sense used in this thread isn't enough to overrule the basic priority of same situation -> same outcome in common law. And that is a principle that is worth defending, even in the passion of the moment when it causes outcomes that are unsatisfying.

It’s more along the lines of a discretionary override when strict application of the law would offend the judge’s interpretation of fairness. It used to be the King’s privilege, and later became a judicial power.

Courts of Equity are a thing. Their goal is fairness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_equity

Indeed, in NZ a judge will occasionally say "imposing the sentence required by law would be manifestly unjust" and the politicians get annoyed their new three strikes law isn't being used.

http://r139.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+11+-+Sentenc...

the picture you paint seems to not actually reflect the reality of the american justice system.

I don't see a conflict in what they say and the actuality of what happens overall. How would you describe it?

in which state do you have the most experience with the justice system?

That's a cop-out. A great deal of horrible shit that happens in our courts is entirely the output of judges and lawyers. (For instance, the courts who support themselves by repeatedly sending poor folks to jail, charging them for their stay, and then sending them back when they can't pay.) Our courts should do the right thing if the law allows them. Instead they do the right thing if the law forces them to do, but only sometimes, if some hardass journalist writes enough articles about their evil deeds. If the victims of this scheme had been mostly WASPs born and raised locally, the courts would have found a reason to seek justice. Instead the victims spoke the wrong language, ate the wrong food, and had skin the wrong color. Sickening.