Part I Introduction/ Part II A case of differences

This work is focused on discrimination in legal systems. The topic of discrimination was
noticed by the author and first analyzed as well using the analogy of anesthetics. It was noticed that the
use of anesthetics, although very common, in often subject to discrimination as to who should and
should not be given such. In this case, women are more commonly prescribed anesthetics and men are
not. The thought is that doctors believe men to be more hardy and women more fragile. This is one of
many analogies that are mentioned in this work that demonstrates discrimination. The author asks the
question of what exactly the difference is. The author worries that when categories such as gender, race,
ethinicity, and class are used in presuming the level of pain (in the case of anesthetics) a person can
handle, there may be unfairness caused by this guise of nuetrality and supposed objectivity.
The main subject though is discrimination in the eyes of the law. The Court and the State often
do their best to maintain neutrality and objectivity, but this attempt at maintaining such, in itself, as
pointed out my the author, can lead to discrimination. There is what the author called the Dilemma of
Difference, which she mentioned has three versions. The first being that difference can be recreated
either by noticing it or ignoring it. When one notices difference then one becomes attentive of it, it can
become the focus of ones attention and becomes difficult to ignore and so one has a tendency to created
a disparity due to this difference in the form of stereotypes and the like. On the other hand when one
ignores differences they may undermine the value of these differences to those who individually put
great value in them. A good example of both are race and culture, if one notices race then stereotypes
are held, an example of which are that all Asians are smart, and if one ignores difference in culture they
may inadvertently insult another for one's ignorance of another's cultural practices.
The second version is what she calls the riddle of neutrality. The effort of governments and
courts to remain neutral may be the source of the discrimination and difference. It was called a riddle
because if the government attempts to maintain neutrality it may in fact be discriminatory against
certain parties while if it attempts to accommodate those parties it may be against the wishes of others.
The problem is that it is trying to maintain neutrality in a world that is by itself not neutral. The third
version is the dilemma of choice between broad discretion and formal rules. The earlier of these allows
individualized decisions while the later limits those in favor of a more general set of rules.
The author believes that these differences are present due to unstated assumptions or stands of
individuals. Whether one likes it or not one can never be completely objective because of this stand that

they take and the subjective nature of human beings. Yet people expect the Courts, which are lead by
judges who are obviously human, to be objective on matters. This assumption can become a factor that
will prejudice against either the offender or the victim. Common discriminations happen between
gender, race, ethnicity, physical build, and the like. It becomes, as mentioned, a dilemma to the
government on how they handle these differences while upholding a guise of nuetrality and while
trying to promote equality amongst people who are, because of these differences, not intrinsically equal
to one another.