type 1: Tadros

Tadros in “Poverty and Criminal Responsibility” illustrates the injustice done by the criminal justice system on the poor. He outlines a social contract between the state and the people. Tadros states that the main problem in our society is, “the state is caught in a moral dilemma with respect to criminal justice. It must, in one way or another, compound the injustice that it has perpetrated through its unjust distribution of wealth” (p. 410). In general, due to the imbalance of wealth in our society, the poor will always be negatively affected. There is a negative connotation with being poor that has existed in our society for a significant amount of time.

Tadros explains in his first account that the poor may not be responsible for the crimes they have been accused of, “One possibility is that some poor people in such conditions might not be responsible agents at all” (p. 391). One example situation is if person A is caught stealing. While stealing is illegal, if the state has not fed the poor sufficiently, they are responsible then for the crime. This is called the justification defense. Tadros states about this situation, “If that is true, while they are responsible for stealing, they are entitled to a justification defense, and hence they are not criminally responsible for what they have done” (p. 392). The state is responsible for maintaining the well-being of its citizens, ergo if person A has to steal in order to survive, they should not be held responsible.

The role of responsibility is significant in Tadros’s article. He believes the only way we can undo this injustice is to reframe how we hold others responsibly in both criminal offenses and everyday relationships. He explains this injustice by stating, “Our right to blame them, it might be argued, is eroded by the fact that we perpetrated the injustice” (p. 393). Tadros explains that a solution to the dilemma is to avoid hypocrisy when blaming others for mistakes. It is easy to blame someone for a mistake and to not be conscious of making their own mistake yourself. Another issue in the justice system is, “A person may be responsible for some action which we lack standing to hold her responsible for performing” (p. 394). Responsibility, Tadros states, appears to be assigned to the performer, and not any other party. By simply obtaining the full picture, more honest justice can be achieved.

A key issue to the injustice towards the poor described by Tadros, is that we are used to, “The normative idea of a crime, it is suggested, is that crimes are wrongs which the state has standing to hold citizens responsible for committing” (p. 395). The inverse of this statement is unheard of in our society. But Tadros asks the question, Why can’t we hold the state responsible?

Tadros uses the analogy of a relationship often in this piece. An example, is when you are in a relationship and your partners wrongs you, you tend to distance yourself. Tadros believes that the poor have the same right to distance the state when they do not provide for them, “ As victims of injustice, since they have been treated wrongly, they are entitled to distance themselves from relations of responsibility with the state” (p. 398). They deserve to separate themselves from who wronged them.

Overall, in Tadros’s piece, he outlines a significant issue in our criminal justice system, the mistreatment of the poor. The poor are often blamed for crimes, even if they aren’t responsible. However, Tadros believes that even if they are responsible for the crimes, it is the state that is really guilty.

Bibliography:

Tadros, Victor. Poverty and Criminal Responsibility. 23 Sept. 2009, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10790–009–9180-x.