Why the Neutrality of Law Remains a Myth

How hidden bias has always defined the laws we call neutral

Since the earliest written legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon (circa 1754 B.C.), laws have reflected the hierarchies of society. In this code, for example, the principle of “life for life, eye for eye” made famous by the Book of Deuteronomy was not applied equally to all: if a free man injured another of the same status, he would be inflicted the same injury in return, but if he harmed a slave, a small fine was sufficient. This example illustrates how early legal systems institutionalized inequality, a pattern that is repeated throughout history. Furthermore, his inequality in the application of justice was also repeated in ancient Rome, where the Twelve Tables (circa 450 B.C.) dictated that a commoner who insulted a patrician would be severely punished, while a patrician would only have to pay a fine if he insulted a commoner. Such disparities underscore the role of law in maintaining social stratification.

The Code of Hammurabi

Throughout history, laws have not only served to maintain order, but also to preserve the power of elites.

While the law if often conceived as being a set of fair rules created to ensure order and coexistence and are told that the justice is blind, impartial and equitable a more critical analysis reveals that laws have historically been a tool of power, designed to protect the interests of certain groups while maintaining control over others. It is crucial to recognize that laws are formulated in response to prevailing economic, political and ideological forces, rather than emerging from an ideal of neutrality. They do not arise in a vacuum; they are created by legislators responding to these influences. In many cases, their formulation and enforcement have served to sustain structures of inequality.

There are numerous documents supporting this phenomenon, from laws protecting slavery in the 19th century to the criminalization of poverty in the 21st century. In the present day, laws against “loitering” and “vagrancy” allow for the prosecution of homeless individuals, while financial crimes committed by large corporations are often settled with fines that are insignificant compared to the harm caused.

Criminal law is one of the areas where the use of law as a mechanism of social control is most evident. Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, draws attention to the dual purpose of punishment: to sanction behavior and to discipline the population, thereby creating obedient subjects. A 2019 study by the Centre for Analysis in Social Exclusion at LSE found a strong correlation between countries with the most punitive legal systems and those with high levels of economic inequality. It is noteworthy that in many nations, the groups most criminalized are those with the least access to resources, including ethnic minorities, the poor, and political dissidents.

Justice for whom? The unequal application of the law

A prime example of this inequality can be seen in the history of the United States, particularly with regard to the racial segregation laws known as Jim Crow Laws, which were implemented primarily primarily throughout the late 19th to mid-20th centuries. Despite the abolition of slavery in 1865, the legal system was rapidly restructured to further exploit the African-American population. Segregation, disproportionate sentencing, and the use of convict leasing, a system in which prisoners were rented as forced labor, demonstrate how the law has been used to ensure the exploitation of certain groups for the benefit of others.

White-collar crimes are seldom prosecuted to the same extent as common crimes, despite their potentially severe social and economic impact. Recent examples in the U.S.A illustrate this point. For instance, a young man from a low-income neighborhood can spend years in prison for marijuana possession, while the Sackler family—responsible for the opioid crisis that has caused more than 500,000 deaths— has never been imprisoned. Instead, they negotiated a financial settlement equal to only 2% of their profits. This highlights a clear undeniable disparity where the legal system tends to punish the most vulnerable while shielding the wealthy and powerful from justice.

If laws reflect the interests of those in power, the fundamental question is whether it can be reformed to truly serve justice. A close reading of historical evidence shows us that the neutrality of law is but a delusion. It has been—and continues to be—a tool of power. But it has also been a battleground. Every labor right, women’s right to vote and anti-discrimination laws was written not as a result of the generosity of the almighty, but because people fought for them.

It is essential to challenge the narrative that the law is a neutral arbiter. Laws have been and will continue to be tools of power until marginalized sectors achieve greater representation in legislative and judicial processes. This prompts us to consider the question of whether justice can truly be blind. A justice system that fails to consider the unique aspects of each case may inadvertently perpetuate the very inequalities it aims to address. True equality cannot be achieved through an absolutist approach; context is essential to ensure its fair and effective application. To move toward a more equitable legal system, reform efforts must include both specific policy changes and greater participation by historically underrepresented communities.

The question, therefore, is not just who makes the laws, but how we can ensure that they represent us as well. Until that happens, the uncomfortable unsettling truth remains: the law is not equal for all, and it never has been.

No man is above the law, and no man is below it. - Theodore Roosevelt