With Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby, these are two cases that illustrate the growing concern that even the presidential candidate John Edwards found himself drawn into the debate. When asked about Ms. Hilton’s release he said, “Without regard to Paris Hilton, we have two Americas and I think what’s important is, it’s obvious that the problem exists.” Judge, Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court in Washington , said he would be pleased to see similar efforts for defendants less famous than Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. “The court trusts,” Judge Walton wrote, “is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step up to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions. The court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries.”
The familiar outcry is that the law is unfairly applied – the perception being that if you are rich or famous, and have access to high-powered lawyers, you will get a better deal. In the case of illegal immigration, the perception is that there is such a complex problem – an estimated 12 millions immigrants are undermining the fabrics of American society – a new law must be worked out.
There are two principles at work here. First, a society needs to abide by the rule of law. In the case of the illegal immigrants, a law has been broken and a new law that gives a smudge in the appearance of amnesty will bring out outcries from different segments of the population. Second, as in Hilton’s and Scooter’s cases, there must be a perception that the law is applied equally.