mocracy,” “fairness,” and “justice.” Is equality the right of every criminal defendant to be represented by F. Lee Bailey? What if fairness and equality or democracy and justice conflict? To embrace the notion that the definition of these terms is self-evident to all men is ludicrous, especially in the aftermath of Watergate. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and the rest were as devoted to a cause as any civil-rights or poverty lawyer. When words like justice and democracy float free, they may be defined in any way those in power find suitable.
That Professor Auerbach has no solutions for the problems discussed in Unequal Justice is unremarkable. There can be none as long as men are endowed with unequal shares of intelligence, initiative, and moral sensibility. The “relocation of economic power,” which he advocates, has been accomplished in other nations. The result has been that justice there has become unbearably unequal. □
Comments