Legitimizing crime & women

 Shelby in the chapter on crime tries to seek an answer to the question: if the ghetto poor have an obligation to respect and abide by the law (204). He paints an image of the ghetto poor choosing crime, as a way of supporting oneself, because of the material deprivation and institutional racism (205). These two conditions combined with an unjust justice system does not allow the ghetto poor to get good jobs, which would allow them to gain an income, which would be enough for them. However, as they still need income, they turn to crime to sustain themselves (205).

Shelby’s argument on if such behavior is reasonable rests on the idea of justice of the overall system (213). The USA can be agreed not to be a fully just society but rather should be considered either a society with some injustice but not fundamentally unjust or fundamentally unjust (213). To answer this question, Shelby wants to distinguish between civic obligations and natural duties (213). Civic obligations are owed to those with whom one is cooperating to create a just basic structure, for example, between citizens in a democratic regime (213). Whereas natural duties are unconditionally binding duties regardless of if they are bounded by an institution or a different authority (213). What matters is that they are a moral person and that is the source of the duty (213).

One of the civic obligations is the value of reciprocity (213). As a citizen who benefits from the goods and services granted by the cooperation, has an obligation to give back by fulfilling the requirements of the institutions when they are just (213). This rule, however, is not met by the ghetto poor, and Shelby states that the sole existence of the ghetto poor shows the lack of reciprocity (218). This way Shelby justifies their lack of need of the ghetto poor to fulfill civic obligations of reciprocity as not every citizen is on equal standing (injustice) (216).

With this justification in mind, I was prompted to think about the role of women in the ghetto poor communities. Women in ghettos can be described as oppressed based not only on the place, race, and class, but also because of their gender. Therefore, based on Shelby’s argument they are also justified to do crime activities.

I want to argue that the legitimacy for women is even stronger because they still uphold the value of reciprocity on their side despite the government not upholding theirs. Women create the future generations of any country and expect in return that their kids will be raised in a society that gives equal opportunity to all, so they can be who they envision. The unjust nature of the US does not allow for it, yet women still become mothers and do it out of their own willingness. Thus, they keep their end of the bargain even when the government is not providing just institutions such as schools or equal opportunities for higher ed. This way women living in the ghettos legitimacy for crime to sustain their families can be bolstered as they still fulfill their promise to the government without it being reciprocated.

One can argue that it is a natural duty for a woman to have kids and thus, we cannot use the outlined arguments. However, this way of reasoning stems from patriarchy which asserts male dominance over women, who is seen as property. This premise is bluntly wrong as women are not properties and have their own individual standings and can make their own decisions regarding having kids. There is no natural duty for women to have kids and a woman herself can make such a decision.