Poverty
In “Poverty and Criminal Responsibility” Victor Tadros highlights the failed relationship between the criminal justice system and impoverished citizens. In it a fact that in places of mass poverty there tends to be an increase in the crime rate. Wealth is the main source of security and in a system in which wealth in unequally distributed, the poor face difficult circumstances. Distributive justice is a major factor in perpetuating poverty. Due to this, Tadros theorizes that our society should not “erode the right to blame the poor for the crimes they commit” but to “restrict the extent to which they can be punished for committing the crimes” (Tadros, 393).
Our entitlement to hold others responsible is the underlying issue in one’s belief of punishing the poor. The state has standing in protecting citizens and punishing wrongdoers. However, Tadros mentions, “If the state in principle lacks standing to hold citizens responsible for a particular kind of conduct, the conduct should not be a crime at all” (Tadros, 395). In this case, the author is addressing crimes of the poor, members of a weaker economic status as a result of state inaction. There are two conditions which illustrate the state’s compounding injustice of the poor. First of all, the state has proven itself to be insufficiently concerned about the crimes of the poor as it created criminogenic conditions under which they operate (Tadros, 410). Secondly, since the poor are the true victims of this injustice, they have sufficient reasons to distance themselves from claiming responsibility of their crimes (Tadros, 410).
Tadros uses hypocrisy and complicity to argue his thesis. Hypocrisy is “the fact that one person commits the same kinds of wrong as someone else deprives the one of standing to hold the other person responsible for his wrongs” (Tadros, 393), however, this is the weaker argument. The complicity stance inculpates the state in the poor’s economic and societal position. If the state’s unfavorable distribution of wealth and justice targets the poor, the state will then lack standing to hold one responsible for crimes committed. It is important to note Tadros does believe failing to hold poor criminal responsible for certain crimes erodes credibility and trust in the criminal justice system. For example, the state should not have the right to pursue criminal action against a person who is unable to afford to feed himself and must resort to stealing food. Unequal distribution of wealth and justice is a major reason why one might have to steal food for survival. Yet, if a poor criminal rapes an innocent person, the state has overwhelming standing to reason to take action. The author instead argues when prosecuting poor criminals, given the state is complicit, we have the moral responsibility to act as a ‘co-defendant’ more than a ‘judge’ contributing to systematic laws that supplement the cycle of poverty (Tadros, 400).
Personally, I believe the state needs to find a balance between under and over-criminalizing the crimes committed by the poor. I recognize the need of the criminal justice system to protect my security and the security of others. However, there needs to be reform in basic laws, such as the case Louisiana v. Fair Wayne Bryant. In this case, a man who had committed past instances petty theft, was sentenced to life for petty theft of hedge clippers, due to the habitual offender laws of Louisiana. The individual in this case has not given reason to severely burden society, he had no record of rape, murder, or committing any other personal crimes against society. His sentence was disproportionate and excessive, and he was only placed in this situation due to the state perpetuating his poor socio-economic status. To conclude, the state is complicit in the crimes of the poor for its unjust creation of many criminogenic conditions.
Victor Tadros “Poverty and Criminal Responsibility.”
