The Legalization of Crime (and why that is bad)

I think Shelby's line of argument in terms of punishment, and the role of state legitimacy with regards to that punishment is logically quite sound. However, as is with many aspects of philosophy, logical soundness does not tend to correlate or justify real-life consequences. The specific question I want to address here is the question posed on page 212, which is "is the crime committed by the ghetto poor unreasonable?". The conclusion is that petty crimes committed by the ghetto poor are not unreasonable, due to the illegitimate criminal justice system that is in place, and the role that system plays in entrenching the position of the ghetto poor.  By extension of that logic, an illegitimate state incapable of ensuring basic constitutional provisions (such as the United States), would not be justified in the prosecution of crimes committed by the ghetto poor if they are securing whatever basic interest that they are otherwise entitled to. On a theoretical level, this seems sound. However, there are very real consequences to this line of thinking. Let's imagine a scenario in which a member of the ghetto poor resorts to theft or burglary as a means to secure their interests. This individual goes to a store or mansion and proceeds to steal. However, the store/property owner sees them and attempts to subdue them with a weapon (such as a gun). The thief in this instance sees this and shoots the property owner first. The property owner is now dead. 

What happens next? Using the aforementioned logic, the state is unjustified in prosecuting the thief for robbery or burglary because they are a member of an oppressed class. Therefore, because the act of burglary or thievery is "justified", the subsequent death of the property owner is also justified seeing as the thief was acting in self-defense (i.e the property owner would've attacked the thief). What we see here is that a case that would have previously been considered as armed robbery, is now an offense that the state can't even justifiably prosecute. It doesn't take long for us to notice that there is something clearly morally troubling about that. 

Even if I bite the bullet, and assume that the previous example is too theoretical and extreme, I think that my argument still stands. For example, Shelby mentions in chapter 8 that crimes committed by the ghetto poor can be tolerated (especially low-level property crimes), as these crimes don't tend to undermine the state or social order. Incidentally, this is similar to what the state of California tried to do with Prop 47 in 2014. Prop 47 reclassified shoplifting of up to $950 as a misdemeanor, rather than felony burglary. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, Prop 47 led to a 9% increase in larceny-theft in 2018 when compared to 2014. What is especially concerning here is that this is only a limited policy in one single state. If we apply the philosophical metric outlined in the first paragraph on a national level, one could only imagine the rapid increase in crime rates, which I would argue definitely undermines social order. This is especially true due to the perceptions citizens will now have of the government and the justice system. Middle and upper-class citizens will now see the government as selectively enforcing laws and choosing not to prosecute crime, which regardless of if it is justified or not, will no doubt lead to violent reactions, once again throwing societal order into chaos. 

Finally, I think that the best method of reconciling Shelby's philosophical argument with real-life applicability is criminal-justice reform. Policy solutions that break down stigmas regarding employing individuals with light criminal records, and providing inmates with career training along with humane treatment should be made a priority. Only a bottom-up, moderate, and sustained approach to prison reform can truly solve the issue of the ghetto poor in America.