"No matter what class we are born into we are all equal under the law," how true is this statement?

Authors Avatar

Ben Jones

10th March 2003

No matter what class we are born into we are all equal under the law,” how true is this statement?

The statement “No matter what class we are born into we are all equal under the law,” is a very utopian opinion of the world at the present time.  The statement recognises that our society is built upon a class system but at the same time recognises that the legal system exists outside these boundaries.  So what is the perceived difference between the principle of “equality under the law and the reality of people’s experience”.  It is fair to say then that the theory behind law is accurate, however when placed in practise we can see it differs dramatically.

        As we are born, it is quite true to say that from the instance a person is born, the law will not have any preconceived notions of that person.  And it is fair to say that, in theory, irrelevant to what class you are placed in, if a crime is committed then the legal system should and will uphold the law.  However, in practise, I believe that a disproportionate size of police resources have targeted crime within the lower classes and the majority of criminals in prison at the moment, previous to their conviction, had an income below £10,000.     It appears to be apparent, from statistics, that the criminal justice system seems to control those in society   who are from a lower class, i.e. less affluent people.  As Reiman (1995) notes about 45% of the U.S. prison population are unemployed, and for those who are employed earn less than $10,000 prior to their arrest.  

So what about the crime that exist within the upper classes?  The upper class crime is extremely different from lower class crime, as the upper class tend to be affluent therefore certain crimes, such as theft, wont be committed.  However some of the crimes committed by this social group are ignored by the authorities that implement the law.  This can be seen even more so when looking at organisations that are being policed by regulating authorities.  When controlled the rich and the powerful are subjected to less stigmatising rules and regulations of agencies such as the EPA (environmental protection agency) CPSC (consumer product safety commission).  A reason for this could be that many of the people who are policing these organisations used to be top executives and therefore are opposed to regulation of corporative activities.  Some say this is because corporations are not subject to the same social control practises because their actions are less costly.  However this perception could not be further from the truth.  In fact, corporative crime can amount to several times that of all the street crime, and with the responsibility of customers, duty of care for waste disposal, and production workers safety, the victims can be considerably worse, i.e. multiple victims, if the regulations are viewed as being a nuisance rather than being taken seriously.  

Join now!

        

        Also when cases come are taken to courts the defendants’ character can play a factor within the case.  When from wealthy backgrounds can afford expensive lawyers who advise hen on how to dress, how to talk, and how to behave.  Also they would appear to be a respectful member of the public and this can influence the judge.  However, with poorer families legal aid would be the only possibility and that would be limited so usually their case can be very weak.  And coming from a lower class area might see him/her not as respectful as a businessman.

I ...

This is a preview of the whole essay