Rational Self-Interest and Conflict Theory Student ID# 23132571 Equal justice for all is a commonly set goal

and ideal by many individuals and institutions. But the reality of the situation is that there are forces unaccounted for by many of the same legal theorists who claim we have equal justice, so it is difficult, if not impossible to achieve it. The idea of sentient beings pursuing their self-interests complicates the goal of equal justice for all because it means that judges, juries, prosecutors, legislators, and everyone else involved in the legal system have their own interests and agendas. The conflict perspective best explains this by describing how law is used as a tool of oppression toward the lower classes, and gain for the wealthy, in part by giving the illusion that there is fairness and equality in the legal system. According to conflict theorists such as E.P. Thompson, the legal order appears natural and fair so to legitimate the power of the ruling class. It is not unexpected, nor particularly unreasonable, for all individuals to pursue their own selfinterest, including the upper-class, and even corporations. This complicates the already-complex legal system by adding a level of speculation on the legitimacy of the legal system; Its difficult to conceive that in a cut-throat capitalistic country

like the United States, there isnt some degree of manipulation of the legal system in the self-interest of certain people or groups of people. According to conflict theory, power is mystified and distorted, the idea of fairness, like freedom of contract, is just a myth; that contracts appears to be open and fair to everyone, but, in reality, they benefit the upper class and corporations. The conflict theory is broken into two sections: hegemony theory, which deals with how law is an ideological device, and economic determinism, which deals with how the law is used to suppress and control subordinate groups. The subsection of the conflict perspective most relevant in this argument is economic determinism. It has long been the case in the U.S. that the upper-class and corporations use their power, mostly through the use of lobbyists, to get tax breaks. Because the lower-class and small businesses have little or no representation, their voice is rarely if ever heard in the legislative process. If a politician is elected to office, he is expected to fulfill his promises to his voters, but often unaccounted for is the organizations and individuals who funded the campaign. In an effort to fulfill their own self-interest, these campaign contributors, who are often upper-class, will expect the politician to work in their favor. And as it works, the politicians self-interest is to get reelected or continue to move up the political ladder, which necessi-

tates continued funding, so the politician will act in his or her own self interest by prioritizing contributors over voters. At the same time, conflict theory would suggest that the politician would attempt to work in the favor of his or her voters to give the illusion of equality. The work of Chambliss on the vagrancy statutes in England provides a good example. The forerunner to vagrancy statute says ...none shall come to eat or lodge in any house of religion, or any others foundation than his own... This statute was intended to relieve overcharged and impoverished religious organizations. Whereas the first vagrancy statute of 1349 says ...none, upon pain of imprisonment shall, under the color of pity or alms, give anything to such which may labor. This intended that people be compelled to labor for their necessary living. At the breakdown of feudalism (1349), the ruling class were the landowners, and the vagrancy statute enforced serfdom. But at the rise of commercialism in the 1500s, the ruling class were the merchants and the vagrancy statute controls suspected thieves. This change exemplifies how the laws were changed to benefit the upper-class. Another example is the freedom of contract. The traditional view is that courts review a contract for fairness, and there is no guarantee on bargain. It also

discourages market exchange. However, in the 19th century, with Free Contract Doctrine, courts presumed that the contract is fair: there is a legal guarantee on the bargain, and it encouraged market exchange. With conflict theory, parties dont really have choices about agreements, there is a inequality of bargaining power, and one party usually benefits more than the other from an exchange. In this example, the upper-class has more wealth and resources to design contracts to benefit themselves. This is also an example of the tradeoff between power and legitimacy. An important question asked is, if conflict theory is accurate, then why are there laws that benefit the lower classes? One explanation for this is that, in the perspective of the upper-class, there needs to be some illusion of equality and fairness. Minimum wage laws are seemingly beneficial for the lower classes, but it doesnt necessarily mean that they are equal in the eyes of the law because of it. Marxs thoughts are essentially the same: the self-preservation instinct of a man leads him to do what benefits him- or her-self, whether or not it is to the detriment of others. So based off this idea, it is conceivable that equal justice should exist, but only when it is in the interest of those deciding on the laws. If, for instance, a politician is trying to decide on what to do about a new legislation that would help the poor but upset his campaign donors, he might take into account the

guilty he would feel if he made a decision that harmed his constituents. So, the moral standing of the individuals involved in the legislation could be a big part of how they make their decision. However, some figures such as Engels would likely not agree with this perspective. As he said, The final causes of all social changes and political revolution are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in man's insight into internal truth and justice... but in the economies of each epoch.

For many who enter a legal profession, truth and justice may be ends within themselves; they might prioritize honesty over possible wealth they would gain from manipulating the system in their favor; so although they would still be acting in rational self-interest (satisfying their own moral ideas), it could still lead to equality in law. It could also be argued that many who enter a legal profession do so for power, in which case equality in law is unlikely to be achieved. Furthermore, even if a legal professional honestly and deliberately seeks equality in law, the problem remains that there are biases which they are not necessarily conscious of. It is difficult not be skeptical of the true intentions of anyone who seeks political/legal power.

Equal justice for all is very difficult, if not impossible to achieve. There are biases in every individual, no matter how honest. Perhaps by striving for it, we can come close to achieving it, but law is too complex and controlled too much by the wealthy to manage equality for all. As the works of E.P. Thompson, Chambliss, and Marx have explained and demonstrated, the law has some inherent problems when the end goal is equal justice; it simply isnt how humans behave. The end goal is always self-interest, but as mentioned earlier, this isnt necessarily unreasonable nor unexpected.