Does the Law Morally Bind the Poor?: Or What Good's the Constitution When You Can't Buy a Loaf of Bread?

by R. George Wright

Overview

Consider the horror we feel when we learn of a crime such as that committed by Robert Alton Harris, who commandeered a car, killed the two teenage boys in it, and then finished what was left of their lunch. What we don't consider in our reaction to the depravity of this act is that, whether we morally blame him or not, Robert Alton Harris has led a life almost unimaginably different from our own in crucial respects.
In Does Law Morally Bind the Poor? or What Good's the Constitution When You Can't Buy a Loaf of Bread?, author R. George Wright argues that while the poor live in the same world as the rest of us, their world is crucially different. The law does not recognize this difference, however, and proves to be inconsistent by excusing the trespasses of persons fleeing unexpected storms, but not those of the involuntarily homeless. He persuasively concludes that we can reject crude environmental determinism without holding the most deprived to unreasonable standards.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780814795026
Publisher:	New York University Press
Publication date:	04/01/1996
Series:	Critical America , #35
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	228
File size:	2 MB

About the Author

R. George Wright is Professor of Law at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Alabama and author of Does the Law Morally Bind the Poor or What Good's The Constitution When You Can't Afford A Loaf of Bread, also available from NYU Press.

Editorial Reviews

This book is provocative but frustrating. Though Wright teaches law (at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford Univ. in Birmingham, Ala.), his argument rarely moves from theory to more practical questions. He suggests cogently that the abject poor not only did not consent to the Constitution when it was adopted but that their latter-day counterparts would likely instead endorse a document that ensured more positive rights, or affirmative obligations on the part of government to alleviate poverty. However, he neglects to examine the difficulties other countries have faced in trying to enforce those kind of positive rights enshrined in their constitutions. He indicts the American criminal justice system for inconsistency: it's willing to consider insanity as a defense but doesn't acknowledge that other circumstances could undermine individual responsibility. However, he does not go on to examine how his critique might be incorporated into defense strategies for violent crimes like, say, the Colin Ferguson "black rage" defense. Instead, he suggests that the defense of necessity-which courts may uphold in certain cases, like when a stranded hiker trespasses to escape a blizzard-might be used to exonerate those who illegally beg, obtain shelter or acquire food. In the end, though, Wright is less concerned about bending the legal system than pointing out the inconsistencies that should shame society into combating poverty. (May)

Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly

Wright (law, Cumberland School of Law, Samford U.) traces the basic legal and political implications of life for the desperately poor, arguing that the law fails to recognize the special circumstances of the severely deprived. He explores the Constitution as it is applied to the poor in our society, and advocates rejecting environmental determinism without holding the poor to unreasonable standards. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

Booknews

"This is a book that can help us think through the terrible choices created in a highly stratified society where an increasing number of people cannot legally obtain even the basic necessities of life. Can we, like Thomas Aquinas, accept the idea that stealing bread under such circumstances is no crime or must we live in a society where equal or greater punishment is imposed on the desperate?"

Gary Orfield