Tadros, “Poverty and Criminal Responsibility”
Type 1
Tadros’s main question is this piece is whether we should hold blame from victims of injustice for the crimes they commit. (Tadros 393) Tadros begins his paper by explaining the relationship between poverty and crime rate, in which he states that poverty increases crime rate. As an economics major, I have learned a bit about this relationship, and notably, it is true that as the poverty rate increase, crime rates also increase. The idea that poverty increases crime rate is known as criminogenic. In addition to this, Tadros states that poor people are often worse off than they should be. One thing I focused in on this piece is the use of the word “should.” Tadros is very cautious not to replace “should” with “does,” to emphasize his ideas are not correlated withe very case that occurs.
Tadros continues on with the assumption that the state has responsibility for lessening criminogenic social conditions, however, instead it has pushed economic injustices, therefore it has failed in reducing these conditions. (391)Tadros begins to dissect what may be reasons the poor may not be held criminally responsible. The first, he explains, is that some poor individuals may be in conditions that do not make them responsible agents, because they lack cognitive, moral, and volitional capacities. (391) He adds that these reasons may result in a lack of opportunities for socialization, resulting in these individuals lacking “status responsibility.” However, Tadros emphasizes that this is only true in extreme cases, because in this reason, one is treating individuals as if they cannot do anything because they may not have the control to do anything. This is a serious situation, and I agree with Tadros. One important assumption that is assumed in economics is that individuals are rational agents, meaning that make choices that benefit them. With this condition that Tadros points out, it would conflict with the assumptions that are made in economics, and therfeore, should be done very cautiously.
A second condition Tadros adds is that some people may be justified in committing some of the crimes they commit. The example that Tadros pointed out is a situation where a poor person steals food the prevent themselves from starvation. Tadros also adds that poor individuals may also be exempt from criminalization since they may have less range of choices, and that we may choose to blame them because we perpetrated the injustice. For this reason, Tadros gives two different explanations for how our standing to hold others responsible may be wrong. The first explanation is hypocrisy, because sometimes we commit the same crime that another commits. The second explanation lies with complicity, which is more powerful to Tadros than hypocrisy, since this means one may be participating in the wrong of another. (393)
The biggest takeaway from Tadros piece is that we should not be able to hold others responsible for a crime if we have done the same. To Tadros, we should hold one another responsible but also ourselves. I agree with Tadros. Because poor individuals may have less resources and are often faced with injustices, there may be situations where they may be exempt from criminalization for a crime they commit. However, I also believe that, going back to the stealing food example, the state should attempt to provide more for those oppressed to help prevent stealing, and other crime that could be minimized with federal aid.
Tadros, Victor. (2009). Poverty and Criminal Responsibility. J Value Inquiry, 43:391–413. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-009-9180-x.
