We live in a republic governed not just by majority rule but also by law. We use law in our country to limit the power of majority rule. The basic reason that we do this is because society can be flawed. This “flaw” can come from a variety of areas, but the one that I would like to focus on is sexism. In criminal law the courts are blind to the ideas that people are different. Every person is given the same privileges and limitations as the next person regardless of sex or race. We do not live in a system were there is a set of rules for men and a different set of rules for women. The application of these laws can be flawed however, because the means in which law is applied is done through human eyes. In theory law should protect every person in the same way, but the application of our laws falls short of this ideal. We live in a system where the law treats every person in the same way. The major argument against this is that race and sex do come into law because we use people to implement the law. This idea that the problem with law is that the people implementing it are sexist should not lead to the idea that law is sexist. Instead we should face the real problem that people are sexist. The law does not say to a police officer to treat one group of people different, but rather the law states that all people should be treated the same. Does that mean that if a police officer treats people different that there is a fundamental flaw in law or does that mean that there is a problem with this officer? The same situation can be brought out in the courts. Jury members not only decide a case on the facts of the case, but also from their own opinions. If there is a sexist jury member that jury member’s opinion will affect the outcome of the case. Once again this should not lead us to believe that the law is flawed; instead that that jury member is. Our court system tries to make sure that any person that ...
