Marginalised groups have argued for removal of protections because of inconsistent application. If the application is inconsistent the marginalised are the

Marginalised groups have argued for removal of protections because of inconsistent application. If the application is inconsistent the marginalised are the ones who suffer from that inconsistency. Those with the power to fix the underlying issues tend to be beneficiaries of that inconsistency, giving them little incentive to make changes. Frequently they don't even perceive there to be a problem because while inconsistent application is theoretically possible, their experience suggests that it just doesn't happen that often. So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?