Module 2 - Justice in Practice

Lesson 3

Economic Inequality and Justice: Can the Rich and Poor Be Equal Before the Law?

Guiding Questions

• Can a society with vast economic inequality still be considered just?

• Do rich and poor people receive the same treatment under the law?

• Should justice be blind to wealth — or take it into account?

Equal Law in an Unequal Society?

Many democracies proudly declare that “all are equal before the law.”

But is that true in practice?

Wealth often changes how people experience the legal system:

• The rich can afford the best lawyers. The poor may receive overworked, underfunded public defenders.

• A $500 fine may feel minor to the wealthy — but devastating to the poor.

• Wealthy individuals and corporations can negotiate penalties or avoid trials entirely.

• Poor defendants often plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, just to avoid months of pretrial jail.

If money shapes outcomes, can we still call it justice?

A Brief Historical Background

• In ancient Athens and Rome, law and justice were tied directly to class and citizenship.

• Enlightenment philosophers demanded legal equality — but the rich still had better access.

• In modern systems, the law claims neutrality. Yet economic gaps persist at every level:

arrest, trial, sentencing, incarceration.

When Wealth Shapes Justice

In today’s world, economic inequality shows up in key ways:

• Bail systems hold poor people in jail for weeks or months — while the wealthy go home immediately.

• Civil cases, such as evictions or debt collection, often leave low-income individuals without legal representation.

• Corporate crime (even when it harms thousands) is punished less harshly than petty theft.

• Policing patterns give wealthier neighborhoods more protection — and poorer ones more surveillance.

The result: an unequal system wearing a mask of fairness.

What Philosophers Say

John Rawls believed that inequality is only just if it benefits the least advantaged. He called this justice as fairness.

Karl Marx argued that under capitalism, the legal system is designed to protect the wealthy. He called this bourgeois justice.

Amartya Sen emphasized that justice requires more than rights on paper — it needs real freedom and real opportunities for all.

Two Ways of Seeing Justice

Some believe justice means treating everyone exactly the same — this is formal equality.

Others argue that true justice must address real-world disadvantages — this is substantive justice.

Which one creates a fairer world?

A Thought Experiment

Imagine two people are each fined $500.

One is a billionaire.

The other earns minimum wage.

Same punishment? Or same words, unequal meaning?

Now imagine a system where:

• Legal help is free and excellent for everyone

• Fines are adjusted based on income

• Corporations face the same consequences as individuals

Would that world be more just — or less “equal”?

Is Poverty a Crime?

In many countries, critics argue that the prison system punishes poverty:

• Homelessness is criminalized.

• People are jailed for unpaid fines or fees.

• Private prisons profit when more people are locked up.

When punishment becomes profitable, can justice survive?

Reflect and Discuss

• Can real justice exist in a deeply unequal society?

• Should laws apply the same to everyone — or differently depending on context?

• What reforms would make justice truly accessible and fair?