The Legal System: Unfair To The Less Fortunate?

It is a common belief that laws are created to keep communities safe and healthy. However, even the most well-intentioned laws can have unintended negative consequences and lead to absurd or unjust outcomes. These laws can disproportionately impact the less fortunate, such as people of colour, those with mental disabilities, or those experiencing domestic violence. For example, nuisance ordinances, which are local laws meant to curb undesirable activities that pose a risk to public health or safety, can result in individuals losing housing if they are deemed a nuisance. In addition, jaywalking laws can lead to the criminalization of normal human responses to poorly designed streets, and the fines associated with these laws can disproportionately affect low-income individuals. Furthermore, fines for minor infractions can create a system where the poor are penalized for being poor, as seen in the case of Latrice Harry, who lost her job and her ability to visit her children due to an unpaid traffic ticket that snowballed into a significant penalty. These examples illustrate how laws can disproportionately impact the less fortunate and create further challenges for those already facing socioeconomic disadvantages.

Nuisance ordinances

The result of these ordinances is often that landlords tell tenants not to report crimes, refuse to renew the lease of anyone involved in reporting a crime, and evict tenants involved in any crimes, even if they were victims. Nuisance ordinances typically do not require that residents are informed about a warning or citation, so people often do not have the opportunity to show that they were victims of the "nuisance conduct".

The laws for nuisance doctrines were first recorded in England during the Middle Ages and were used to refer to someone who interfered with the owner of a piece of land from utilizing that land. In the 13th and 14th centuries, changes were made to also apply to any interference with land owned by the King of England, which included most public roads and other areas.

The expansion of nuisance doctrines to include violations of anything deemed against the public order occurred over the following centuries, and by the 18th century, they were commonly applied to prevent the sale of alcohol and prostitution. However, modern implementations in the late 20th and 21st centuries have returned to focusing on the misuse of property, particularly leased housing.

The current implementation of these ordinances first began being passed in the 1980s as a method to deter crimes involving the drug trade in various major cities. A federal US law was passed in 1986 as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, making landlords criminally liable if they rented to people they knew to be trafficking or using illegal drugs. This led to the first nuisance ordinance under the modern usage being passed in 1987 in Portland, Oregon, to evict tenants in claimed drug houses.

As of 2021, 37 out of the 40 largest cities in the US have implemented some form of nuisance ordinance law, with more than half having eviction of the tenant as the penalty for violation.

Jaywalking laws

In the United States, jaywalking is typically prohibited and can result in a ticket or fine. However, the specific consequences differ across states. For example, in Pennsylvania, pedestrians are required to cross streets at marked crosswalks or intersections, and jaywalking can lead to dangerous situations where pedestrians are struck by vehicles. If a driver hits a jaywalking pedestrian, they may face criminal charges, traffic violations, and civil liability. On the other hand, California has recently decriminalized jaywalking, allowing pedestrians to make "safe mid-block crossings" unless there is an immediate danger of a collision.

In the United Kingdom, the term "jaywalking" is not commonly used, and there are no laws restricting how pedestrians can cross public highways, except on high-speed roads such as motorways. Similarly, in the Netherlands, jaywalking is not considered an offence, and pedestrians have the right of way at zebra crossings.

In some countries, jaywalking is more of a necessity due to a lack of regulated crossings or heavy traffic. For instance, in many Asian countries, jaywalking is rarely punished outside of major commercial hubs. In India, jaywalking is common due to a lack of regulated crossings, poor enforcement of safety rules, and ignorance of these rules.

While jaywalking laws aim to protect pedestrians and drivers, they can disproportionately affect individuals who are less fortunate. For example, individuals without access to a car may be more likely to jaywalk out of convenience or to reduce their travel time. Additionally, those who live in areas with poorly designed street crossings or a lack of sidewalks may be more inclined to jaywalk.

Fines for minor infractions

Minor infractions are generally considered less serious than felonies or misdemeanours, and they often do not result in jail time. However, they can still have repercussions on an individual's record and daily life. For example, in California, a traffic infraction can add 1 point to a record and incur fines, and if the points accumulate, it could lead to extra fines or even jail time.

Some common examples of minor infractions that can result in fines include:

• Traffic violations, such as speeding, running a red light, illegal parking, and failure to yield.
• Public nuisance, loitering, littering, or trespassing.
• Public intoxication or being under the influence of drugs in a public place.
• Petty theft, such as shoplifting small items or taking someone's belongings without consent.
• Disorderly conduct, including public fighting, excessive noise, or using offensive language.
• Fishing without a license.
• Building permit violations.
• Operating a business without a proper license.
• Walking an unleashed dog.

It is important to note that the consequences of minor infractions can vary across different jurisdictions, and individuals facing charges should consult with an experienced attorney to understand their specific situation.

Criminalising food sharing

Food crime is a serious issue that can have detrimental effects on consumers, especially those from less fortunate backgrounds. It involves fraudulent behaviour at any stage in the production or supply of food and drink, and can take many forms, including adulteration, substitution, theft, and misrepresentation. One form of food crime is economically motivated adulteration (EMA), where valuable ingredients are left out or substituted with cheaper alternatives, or substances are added to increase the apparent value of a product. This type of food fraud is common and can have significant economic and health impacts on consumers.

One example of EMA is the dilution of extra-virgin olive oil with less expensive vegetable oil and selling the mixture as pure olive oil at a higher price. This not only deceives consumers but also poses potential health risks, as the added substances may be unsafe or contain allergens. Another instance is the addition of cellulose (wood pulp) and cheddar to grated parmesan cheese, which was sold as 100% parmesan. This type of food fraud not only cheats customers but also poses health risks, with some cases leading to serious illnesses and even deaths.

Food fraud is a global issue, with estimates suggesting it affects 1% of the industry at a cost of $10-$15 billion annually, although some recent estimates put the cost as high as $40 billion. To combat this, various laws and regulations have been implemented, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the US, which provides adulteration charges for EMA. Additionally, food safety modernization rules require companies to put preventive controls in place to guard against hazards intentionally introduced for economic gain.

While food fraud affects people from all walks of life, it can be argued that it disproportionately impacts those who are less fortunate. This is because they may not have the financial means to access diverse and safe food sources or the knowledge to identify food fraud. Additionally, they may rely more heavily on cheaper food options, which are often the target of adulteration and substitution. As a result, the health and economic consequences of food fraud can be more severe for this demographic.

To address this issue, it is essential to strengthen food safety regulations and increase public awareness, especially among vulnerable communities. By implementing stricter controls and providing education on identifying food fraud, we can help protect those who are less fortunate from the detrimental effects of food crime.

School discipline policies

In the United States, there are discipline disparities among students of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Black and poor students are suspended at much higher rates than their white and non-poor peers, and these disparities exist for both violent and nonviolent infractions. For example, in Louisiana, black students are about twice as likely as white students to be suspended, and low-income students are about 1.75 times as likely as non-low-income students. These disparities are evident within and across schools, with black and low-income students also receiving longer suspensions for the same types of infractions.

One explanation for these disparities is discriminatory school discipline practices, where different groups are punished differently for similar behaviours. For instance, a study found that black students were punished longer than white students for interracial fights, even when controlling for factors such as prior discipline history and special education status. However, it is difficult to determine the exact causes of these disparities, as researchers often lack data on student infractions and punishments.

To address these issues, some states and school districts have revised their policies to limit the use of suspensions and expulsions, also known as exclusionary discipline, for low-level, nonviolent offenses. Instead, they are encouraging the use of alternative approaches such as restorative justice programs, behavioural interventions, and social-emotional learning programs. These approaches aim to reduce the use of punitive discipline, create a more inclusive and equitable school climate, and improve student and teacher perceptions of school safety.

While there has been progress in reforming school discipline policies, more work is needed to understand the full landscape of disciplinary practices and their impact on student outcomes and equity. It is important for researchers and educators to continue evaluating and improving school discipline policies to ensure that they are applied fairly and effectively for all students, regardless of their background or personal characteristics.

Frequently asked questions