Elitist legal judgements

Active judicial prejudice
Elitist justice

Nature

Justice serves only the the rich and influential who have any control over the structures of law when majority of people are not able to participate in articulating the need for new (and the revision of old) statutes to meet present-day needs.

Incidence

Elitist legal judgments manifest in various forms across different jurisdictions, often reflecting systemic biases that favor affluent individuals or groups. Studies indicate that wealthier defendants receive more lenient sentences compared to their less affluent counterparts, with disparities evident in countries like the United States, where a 2018 report found that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately incarcerated. Additionally, legal representation quality often correlates with financial status, further entrenching these inequalities in judicial outcomes.
A notable instance of elitist legal judgments occurred in 2019 in the United States, when a wealthy college admissions consultant, William "Rick" Singer, was implicated in a nationwide college admissions scandal. Despite the gravity of the charges, many affluent parents involved received comparatively lenient sentences, highlighting the influence of socioeconomic status on judicial outcomes. This case underscored the perception that the legal system can be manipulated by those with financial resources, raising concerns about fairness and equality in legal proceedings.

Claim

The present legal system has a bias toward the rich and powerful - the people who have run the system for hundreds of years.

Counter-claim

Elitist legal judgments are often overstated as a problem. The legal system, by its nature, requires expertise and nuanced understanding, which elite judges provide. Their decisions, grounded in extensive knowledge, ensure the rule of law is upheld. Instead of viewing this as elitism, we should recognize it as a necessary safeguard against populism and emotional decision-making. The focus should be on improving access to legal resources, not undermining the expertise that maintains justice and order.