Do fame/celebrity/wealth result in a different standard of treatment in our judicial system - Research Paper Example

On the hand, the judiciary is not keeping any liberal approach to the cases with respect to the ordinary people. The cases related to Kobe Bryant, Martha Stewart, and Michael Jackson is the best example for the double standards adopted by the American criminal justice system. No ethical or legal principles ask us to perceive the crimes differently if it is committed by the celebrities. Even then celebrities are repeating their crimes and still able to escape from severe punishments. This paper analyses how the judiciary is influenced by the fame/ celebrity/wealth while deciding the punishments for a crime.

“The sexual assault case against basketball star Kobe Bryant, which was ultimately dismissed on September 1, 2004, reflected the extent to which closure and secrecy, permissible only in the rarest circumstances, can expand over the course of judicial proceedings” (BOUTROUS & DORE, 2004, p.1). Many people in America believe that the case against Kobe Bryant was proved in the court with the help of strong evidences against the former basket ball star. Even though even the ordinary people in America were convinced about the crime committed by Kobe Bryant, the judiciary was not convinced.

It is fact that judiciary approaches the cases with the help of the evidences. At the same time, the evidences submitted in the court against Kobe Bryant could have been sufficient for the court to punish the culprit if the culprit was an ordinary person. Moreover the court decided that the evidences labeled against Kobe Bryant were not sufficient enough to punish him, considering the fame and popularity of the Kobe Bryant. In the above case, it is evident that the court gave more preferences to the popularity and star value of Kobe Bryant than the seriousness of the crime.

In other words, the court tried to uphold the rights of celebrities in doing rape like crimes. “The court thought that the greater the public interest in judicial records and proceedings, the