Ewick and Sibley.

One purpose of the book was to explain the difference in perspectives that people have about the law. The first – “before the law” – is that the law is a grand system that is more or less distant from the lives of regular people. The second – “with the law” – is that the law is actually a game to be played and maneuvered for one’s benefit, or to one’s detriment. The third point of view – “against the law” – is that the law is a source of power that people are either use to further their interests, or find themselves helpless in the face of. The authors compare these perspectives in order to analyze the relationships that “ordinary” people experience with the law.

One point of interest for this writer was the helplessness and impotence felt by many in the face of the legal system, expressed in this book. Is it learned, then, that people have no power and thus must accept the judgments and slights dealt out by the law? Or, through their own inequality within society (many were described as poor or of minority status), do people come to feel incapable of successfully navigating the system? Does having money, power, or racial/class status procure one’s legal victory, or is everyone being subjected to the same rules? In Millie Simpson’s case, she was not given a public defender until after her judgment had been dealt; this was the only instance that I recall of this sort in the book. Would this have happened to an educated person? A white person? A person of greater economic class? Or would the court have recognized the inadvisability of trying to withhold rights from someone who either knows better or has the power to object to such treatment?

Another point of interest was the fact that this study took place in New Jersey. How much would the results differ in, say, Texas? Would people feel a greater affinity to or disdain for the legal system? Would those interviewed have had greater success steering through legal waters? Furthermore, what is the greatest determinant of legal injustice or mistreatment – class, race, age, sex? Many of those interviewed were above the age of thirty; would the younger generation have reacted differently, recounted stories with varying ideas than those presented in this book?