| Details | | Publication Date: | 1996-04-01 | | Series: | Critical America Series |
| Size | | Length: | 219 pages | | Height: | 8.5 in | | Width: | 5.8 in | | Thickness: | 0.8 in | | Weight: | 13.6 oz |
Publisher's Note
Imagine you return home one day to find the cords on your window sashes gone. A number of reasons for their disappearance might occur to you. Most of us, however, would not immediately consider that intravenous drug users had taken the cords for the purpose of fixing. Yet, for some, this possibility would seem quite likely. Or 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, Harris has led a life almost unimaginably different from our own in crucial respects. In this book R. George Wright traces the most basic legal and political implications of life in circumstances far bleaker than those with which most of us are familiar. While the poor live in the same world as the rest of us, he argues, their world is crucially different. The law, however, fails to recognize this difference. By not taking proper account of the circumstances of the severely deprived, we often make assumptions that violate logic and fairness. Wright's analysis explores the Constitution as it is applied to the poor in our society. He then argues that the law is inconsistent in 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 withot holding the most deprived to unreasonable standards.
Industry 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)
Lopate
| See an error? Submit a change request |
All rights reserved.
