Victims In The Shadow Of The Law Analysis

The family is not familiar with the legal system and its processes, but cannot afford to hire an attorney. The warranty corporation has their own team of lawyers to appear on their behalf. They will be able to organize and present their material in a way that gives it legitimacy to a jury and/or judge. The family might have a legitimate claim but do not understand or know to include information that could potentially when their case. This error can lead to a negative outcome for the family who might have won if they had access to a lawyer.

Some might argue that the state will appoint an attorney to individuals with limited financial resources, in criminal cases. Individuals can apply for legal aid assistance if they meet the income threshold,

Bumiller, author of “Victims in the Shadow of the Law,” blames this phenomenon on a flawed legal system. Anti-discrimination laws are based on legal protection; which Scheingold argues does not exist. The victim must have a working understanding of the legal system in order to invoke these protective measures of the law; which only reflect the ideology of the powerful. The individuals may be left feeling overwhelmed and unsure how to navigate the claims process without a lawyer. Bumiller also argues that individuals may not like the way the state makes them feel during this process. Bumiller’s research of women and minorities examines the choices of victims due to their perceived social constraints. Individuals’ sampled report that their lack of legal action is due in part to their immediate situation, including their lack of financial and legal resources, combined with their perceived threat of harm their opponent could cause them. Victims are often kept in a position of victimization, which keeps them from filling a claim (Bumiller 1987). If an individual feel their job and reputation are at steak they may abstain from filing a claim, not because they do not want a remedy but because they cannot risk losing their

Oliver Wendell Holmes is considered the father of legal realism. Gordon author of “Some Critical Theories of Law and Their Critics,” agrees with Holmes’ legal realism, which argues that law is simply what the judges make it. Legal formalism disagrees and interprets law as a set of rules that can be applied properly or improperly to cases (Gordon 1998). Critical legal studies done between the 1970’s and 1980’s accept the premise of legal realism and adds that judges are elites, and so is the law that protects dominate interests. Legal and liberalism ideologies hide the fact and pretend to be neutral. Gordon claims that the entire legal system is fundamentally illegitimate. He argues that judges are not following the rules, which create a false sense of legitimacy and necessity (Gordon 1998 p.648). Gordon argues that the system is neither