Stone contends that the notion of equality before the law is a myth because despite the intention of the law to serve “even the weakest member of the community” (344) with fairness and dignity, a close look at our legal system makes it apparent that the goal of democracy is not always achieved. Stone exposes a gap between the ideals of the law and the reality of our court systems. As he notes, regardless of whether we choose to acknowledge the fact, “[d]isputes are contests between people who hold positions in society that give them more or less power in the courts” (344). What he is arguing, in effect, is that even when a judge or jury takes an oath to be impartial, objectivity is impossible. There will always be subjective variables that influence the court’s decisions in cases that are presented. Among these many variables is the number of times that an individual or party has appeared before the court and previous outcomes. What makes the recognition of this fact important, Stone argues, is that micro-level disputes reflect macro-level concerns, relationships, and imbalances in society. Thus, the individual court case is symbolic of larger social concerns and problems.
There are two different models of rights that also influence the legal system and its processes. One framework is the rationality model; the other is the polis model of rights. According to the rationality model, the various parties in the legal system look and adhere to statements of rights that appear in foundational documents, such as the Constitution of the United States. The rationality model assumes that the rights and the interpretation of them can be understood by applying reason and logic. The rationality model further assumes that all people have equal access and equal rights under this system and that objectivity is possible. The polis model of rights, on the other hand, recognizes and incorporates abstractions into its framework. Interpretations of statements are always subject to variation, the polis model argues, and there are a number of influences that can shape the way that interpretations are formulated; such influences include the media, religious values, and personal experience. The polis model recognizes that objectivity is impossible, and that subjective forces will always intrude on the legal and justice processes. The polis model does not posit that the players in the system should strive for objectivity; rather, it accepts that even in our desire to be fair and to apply standards evenly and equally, this ideal is not always possible.
