All Equal Before the Law: And Other Fairy Tales
The principle that all are equal before the law is a cornerstone of modern democracy and the rule of law. Its origins trace back to ancient times, specifically to the era of classical Greece. During this period, city-states emerged, and Greek polities moved away from the traditional reverence for royal authority, a stark contrast to the norm in most civilizations of that era. In these city-states, critical decisions were made with the participation of all male citizens, who earned this right in exchange for military service. However, this principle of equality was only extended to the citizens of the city (who also served as members of the phalanx during wars) and did not apply to women or slaves.
The Athenian lawmaker Solon, one of the famed “Seven Sages” of Greece, prided himself on maintaining equality among citizens. In most other ancient communities, kings were immune to prosecution and were certainly not considered equals before the law, not to mention the caste and class privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy.
In modern terms, equality before the law and legal rights emphasize the most fundamental principle of democracy and classical liberalism. According to this principle, all citizens are equal before the law regardless of their race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, place of residence, social standing, and religious or political beliefs. Any violation of this principle is termed discrimination. In most democratic states, overt discrimination is not displayed, although biases persist subliminally as people continue to be guided by their preferences.
This principle stresses the human rights and limitations therein. Special attention is given to the legislative protection of rights and ensuring equal access for all citizens to the legal system. Equality before the law includes the uniform obligation of citizens to abide by the law and equal treatment by law enforcement agencies for similar violations. This is closely linked to the principle of the rule of law, which requires that laws apply equally to those who enact them and those who possess supreme authority. The justice system should not consider the origin, power, wealth, or social status of the individuals before it.
Due to social inequality, some individuals have better access to resources for defending their interests and, consequently, better chances of winning legal cases. Addressing such disparities often involves significant challenges.
In contemporary times, inequality before the law manifests not in terms of status but due to varying abilities to evade legal prosecution. Discussions about any form of equality, whether it be equality before the law or equality of opportunity, inevitably recall George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” with its dictum “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
In some cases, personal and familial connections, corruption, or resources for effective legal defense play a role, while in others, it is simply a matter of not being within reach of the authorities. Declarations imply the absence of such class statuses, but it is quite clear that in virtually all societies, what is permissible for some is not for others.
There is also the phenomenon of “reverse discrimination,” where groups that had limited rights in the past now demand essentially greater rights than the groups that oppressed them. This has led to paradoxical forms of racism against whites in the USA or overtly exaggerated feminist movements targeting many famous men for alleged sexual harassment.
Another form of inequality before the law is the disparity between those who are caught violating the law and the vast majority who are not caught. This glaring injustice makes the justice system seem like a mere search for a scapegoat. For example, on a busy highway where everyone speeds, only those who are caught are penalized. The penalties are severe, leading to increased insurance rates and potential employment issues in driving-related jobs. The same approach applies to more serious legal violations.
Despite efforts to establish equality before the law since time immemorial, the value of human life and equality were not self-evident until relatively recently. Many international organizations aimed at overseeing socio-political relations emerged mainly after World War II. Before this, it was not universally acknowledged that all people are equal. America grappled with racial segregation, and eugenics thrived in wartime Europe. Suddenly in the 1960s and 70s, it was declared that all were equal, including before the law, yet historical memories persist. Now, in the USA, the Black Lives Matter movement is gaining momentum, which some perceive as engaging in riots and looting under the endorsement of the Democratic press, claiming rights due to historical oppression.
Such currents are akin to terrorism, used to destabilize society in preparation for elections, to decrease the chances of the incumbent candidate. It doesn’t matter who the destabilizing force is — be it the “Yellow Vests” in France or “Black Lives Matter” in the USA. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement was more peaceful a few years ago. Where did it come from? Where did it go? Who organized and funded it?
It’s disconcerting to feel that someone is crudely manipulating news and public demonstrations, and we can’t understand who or why. Only assumptions remain.
Inequality before the law also arises because different segments of the population are raised differently and are laden with stereotypes about each other. Some obey laws because they were raised that way, while others disregard them because they were raised differently. In some communities, it’s customary to pay taxes, while in others, everything is done under the table.
Have you heard of the broken windows theory? If one window in an abandoned building is broken, it’s likely that all the others will be broken in a few days.
A human is a blank slate. Essentially, nature does not make us good or bad; it’s the environment that shapes us. If a person lives in a society where no one has ever paid taxes, naturally, they will behave similarly, as this is the norm in their society.
Depending on a variety of factors, often irrational, the approach to legal cases with similar legal bases and intents can vary dramatically, and the outcomes can be diametrically opposite. The breadth of interests involved, the potential for manipulation of all kinds of information (evidence, physical proofs, etc.), the possibilities for maneuvers or settlements out of court, and the recruitment or concealment of materials ultimately result in the parties involved being factually unequal in the process. State bodies, which include courts, are always impersonal. They must embody and implement certain collective societal expectations, and therefore their attitude to certain areas of regulation of social relations is biased to some extent, depending on the development and volatility of the institutions themselves. They ultimately apply certain statistical quantities and record deviations — what they ultimately need to present to society to confirm their significance on the one hand and the correctness of their judgments on the other. Political circumstances in such cases manifest in a sublimated form, but it is precisely these that betray themselves through the aggregate of decisions made at any given historical time, comparing these decisions with the prevailing consensus of the moment. The most intense discussions about equality before the court occur precisely when there is the least confidence in its actual existence in objective reality.
