Perception Of Blind And Fair Justice

1688 WordsMar 2, 20167 Pages
Despite the appealing notion of blind and fair justice, many question the existence of this ideal in reality – and rightly so. Many of the challenges to law’s claim of impartiality concern the influence of social characteristics such as race or sex when they should be irrelevant. Marc Galanter introduces a more structural argument, related to the frequency with which one litigates, bringing disputes before a court. Galanter claims that those who regularly engage in similar litigation, whom he labels “repeat players” (RPs) have multiple advantages over “one-shotters” (OSs), who rarely enter the forum of law, where courts interpret and apply official rules to settle disputes, in their ability to achieve desired legal outcomes. The fact that the repeat players are also often those with more power and wealth, at least in the American case, supports and helps to explain the general sense that these “haves” come out ahead in the game of law. The evidence provided by Galanter and others supports the fact that it is, in general, much better to be such a “have”. Additionally, these advantages and disadvantages flow from the forum of law into other ways of managing harms in social life, either reinforcing or leaving unchallenged the power of the “haves”. [In many cases, “have nots” do not even get a shot and are forced to endure.] What exactly do the “haves” have that gives them such an advantage? Galanter’s argument specifically focuses on the benefits held by nature of being a
Open Document