Critical Assessment of Tadros- Arguing from a perspective of moral luck

Tadros’ writing is weaken by his assumption that the state is responsible for providing for the poor, or at least for preventing criminogenic conditions from permeating society. This claim is weak because in much of the United States, including a significant portion of southeastern states, it is not the dominant belief that the government has a duty to fully provide the indigent their needs. For example, in South Carolina, even providing universal four year old public schooling, which would provide for adequate socialization opportunities, has failed to make it through the legislature two years in a row now. While Tadros would view the failure to create universal four year old schooling as the government creating a criminogenic condition by not providing poor families with afforable early education, thus subjecting these children and families to injustice, I believe that many South Carolinians and many S.C. legislators may not believe that it is necessarily the government’s duty to provide for citizens in this way. Stimulus checks and other social programs are largely viewed by one of the major parties of the United States as ‘government handouts’, which demonstrates the lack of societal belief in one of Tadros’ main assumptions: that it is the state’s role to prevent criminogenic conditions from existing.

Let’s examine the argument that Tadros makes. The conclusion Tadros aims to reach is that the government cannot rightfully hold the poor responsible for their crimes when criminogenic conditions occur.

1. The government is responsible for preventing criminogenic conditions.
2. If criminogenic conditions occur, then poor people are more likely to commit crimes.
3. If criminogenic conditions occur, then the government has acted irresponsibly.
4. Given 2. and 3. the government shares responsibility in the crimes of the poor.
5. Given 4. the government cannot hold the poor responsible for their crimes.

Tadros’ argument is based off of a false premise that 1. the government is responsible for preventing criminogenic conditions. Therefore, the conclusion that the government is not entitled to hold the poor responsible for their crimes is drawn in error when based upon this premise. I will argue that we can arrive at the same conclusion, that the government cannot rightly hold the poor responsible for their crimes, while basing this argument off of more widely accepted premises that are based upon moral luck. Let’s suppose, in a completely hypothetical world, a global pandemic occurs! It isn’t any one person’s fault, and it sends the global economy into a tail spin. You lose your job and are evicted because of the conditions created by the pandemic! You now find yourself in a situation of poverty, which is a criminogenic condition. You have to have food to survive, but you have no income to spend on food. In your perception of necessity, you steal a loaf of bread off of the grocery store shelf and are caught stealing. The state cannot hold you responsible for your theft because you are subjected to circumstantial luck. The circumstances of being subejected to poverty leads you to commit a crime. You are not responsible for the conditions that drove you to your action and thus cannot be held responsible by the state for your action. I believe that this premise of being subjected to moral luck is more widely accepted as true as opposed to the premise that it is the government’s role to prevent criminogenic conditions, such as poverty, from persisting in the first place. When the moral luck premise is utilized, we can correctly arrive at the conclusion that the government cannot hold the poor responsible for their crimes.

Tadros, Victor. (2009). Poverty and Criminal Responsibility. J Value Inquiry, 43:391–413. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-009-9180-x.