Yes, but it's not intentional like you seem to imply, it's incidental.
The intention is not to punish those with no money, its to extract the most value in every segment of the market.
Trust me, maximal value extraction is similarly going on for new cars and lightly-used second hand cars too.
You are quite correct, but this is one of those rare cases when "learning things" is enough to uplift one from some of the poverty.
I did not start out rich enough to afford a 6 year old car cash, I started out by saving for a year (sacrificing a lot in other spheres of my life at that age, early 20s) to buy a barely running beater that I then maintained cheaply for the next 5 years.
Cost over five years, including repairs and maintenance was about a tenth of a new car price.
Many who cannot afford the cash $8k for a decent 2nd-hand car can afford the cash $2k for a dodgy barely running car.
The problems they face is being clueless about cars, repairing, etc in general.
IOW, the problem they have is not "not enough cash to own a car", it's "not enough knowledge to fix a car". The only person who can remedy that is themselves, not the market.
Looked at through this lens, this is not a punishment on poverty, it's a punishment on lack of knowledge.
To me, that's the biggest reason for used-car prices to be low - the market is restricted to those who have cash. IME, the prices of cars that cannot be financed (older than 5 years) is severely constrained. I've seen a 5 year old model advertised for exactly twice the price as an almost identical 6 year old model, with similar mileage and similar condition[1].
I find that hard to reconcile with the other posters in this thread who observed that used cars are still too expensive. Maybe they are looking at used-cars that can still be financed (under $X years, for example)?
=======================
[1] Condition of both was reported by the same independent assessor - see my posting upthread