Who can the ghetto poor steal from?

 In this blog post, I want to consider the legitimacy of criminal actions perpetrated by residents of the dark ghettos in which the victims of the crimes are other residents of the dark ghettos. 


Shelby argues that when society doesn't include adequate opportunities for individuals to avoid demeaning forms of labor, crime becomes reasonable (216). This is because, when individuals are not afforded that opportunity, they can reasonably claim they are not being treated as equal members in a cooperative society and that the requirement for reciprocity is not being met (217). When members of the ghetto poor are not treated in accordance with reciprocity, they are not bound by civic obligations (213). However, all people are bound by natural duties, including the obligation not to cause unnecessary suffering and the obligation to respect the personhood of others. In Shelby’s view, a category of crimes emerge as reasonable under this framework–crimes that would violate civic obligations but do not violate the natural duties that bind all moral humans (220). One example of permissible crime Shelby gives is taking the possessions of others, especially others who are reasonably well off (220). 


However, Shelby also argues that it is reasonable to expect more than just fulfilling natural duties of the residents of dark ghettos. In addition to fulfilling natural duties, the ghetto poor should “refrain from taking actions that would clearly exacerbate the injustices of the system or increase the burdens on others in these communities” (222). It can be assumed from this claim that Shelby thinks the ghetto poor who engage in crime should avoid perpetrating crime that harms other members of the ghetto poor. 


I believe this expectation is not reasonable, given other claims made by Shelby in the Crime chapter. As Shelby lays out, the ghetto poor are often drawn towards crime because it is a source of income. Shelby says that crime becomes necessary as a supplement to one’s legal source of income or even as a sole source of income because the ghetto poor have inadequate access to low-skilled jobs. Therefore, petty theft can become one’s primary source of income. Importantly, one of the reasons why there is a lack of sufficient low-skilled jobs available to the ghetto poor is because of the structure of neighborhoods. Shelby says there are more job opportunities for low-skilled workers in lower poverty areas (208). However, these jobs are situated in neighborhoods where the ghetto poor cannot afford to live, and public transportation is too lacking or too expensive to effectively allow the ghetto poor to commute for these jobs. Shelby is clear on the point that there is a geographic reason why the ghetto poor have inadequate access to jobs and therefore turn to crime for income. For this same geographic reason, it is difficult for the ghetto poor who engage in crimes to avoid targeting members of their own communities. If the ghetto poor who make their livings by stealing the possessions of others could effectively commute to other neighborhoods to target individuals who are not themselves members of the ghetto poor, then those criminals would likely not have had to resort to crime in the first place because they would have had access to the low-skilled jobs available in lower poverty neighborhoods.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more