Taking the Justice system as a whole and defining the near quality of it goes as follows:"The justice system is a system of written laws, legal procedures, and courts that resolve disputes and punish the guilty"(p.205).  Some say that the Judiciary System is a support of freedom.  In some ways it is, in others I beg to question some concerning differences that follow an iron hand rather than the thought of freedom.
Equality for instance. Judge Sturgess made a quote that hits it on the dot: "Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."  As in other blogs, I have expressed the lack of equality between the rich and the poor.  In a sociology class for instance I learned that if you are dressed nicely with a prestigous lawyer, you are more likely to get off easier than a person doing less but does not have a lawyer. "...The law can mask inequality by giving the impression that all citizens stand before the law as equals"(p.206).  The only way it seems that inequality can be abolished is if people were to become robots, with the constitutional rights written into the formula that maps their mind.  But we are only human, and humans are biased even if they think they are not.
Through the reading I also found an interesting fact: "Their [the courts] decisions usually follow and confirm reforms rather then cause them"(p.235).  It is the impression that the Judiciary system is more of a follower than a leader.  Laws are passed down from one level to the next until it gets to this system in which the appointed life term judges have to uphold those laws.
Now on to my critical question of the week:
How can the Judiciary system support freedom when it is not in control?
From everything that I have read so far on this system, I find the Judiciary system holds barely any control except to pass the law that was given to them and see it practiced accordingly. Still there are inequalities that are bothersome.