Introduction
Economic disparity is the unbalanced distribution of wealth and opportunities among various social groupings. Almost all nations are concerned about it, and many people are stuck in poverty with few opportunities to move up the social scale. Most governments utilize social welfare programs, such as schooling at all levels, skills development, and job enrichment, to lift individuals out of poverty and lessen inequality. In that regard, this paper details the effects of economic inequality on communities and its maintenance by the U.S. legal system.
Impact of Economic Inequalities on the Communities
Higher levels of poverty correlate with higher levels of economic inequality. For instance, poverty leads to increased crime and poor public health, which hurt the economy as support for pro-growth state policies wanes amid rising food prices and declining wages. According to Li and Faxi, wealthy individuals have significant political power, which encourages the development of inefficient tax policies that benefit the wealthy (88). Civil unrest, which undermines property rights and raises the possibility of state-renewed contracts, seems exacerbated by unequal wealth distribution. A growing gap between the rich and the poor tends to boost the prevalence of rent-seeking and other unethical market practices that impede wealth creation (Roberts 11). After a stage of high growth, poverty in financially unequal communities appears inhibited by the declining availability of inputs for human resources. Furthermore, physical investment becomes more common as fewer people can afford to spend money on formal education. Therefore, greater wealth inequality boosts the informal sector, giving low-skilled and disadvantaged people poor job opportunities.
By decreasing investment in law enforcement in low-income areas, a significant wealth disparity tends to increase crime. Particularly as the gap between the rich and the poor widens, wealthy people in a community often cluster in isolated areas. Hence, the police are less effective or have more officers who are prone to bribery in a growing number of disadvantaged communities. Financially unbalanced societies sometimes see an increase in crime in low-income areas due to rising wealth concentration (Li and Faxi 93). Furthermore, increasing state spending on police agencies in areas with high economic inequality does not reduce crime. Therefore, fewer legal avenues exist for the increasing number of poor individuals who live in an unjust society to get resources.
The U.S. Legal System in Maintaining Legal Inequality
Equal protection under the law is a principle that is enshrined in the United States Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. For instance, abolishing segregation gave the United States prestige abroad when anti-capitalist sentiment was on the rise. Benz argued that it calmed the black World War II warriors who had fought for justice and liberty only to resort to prejudice and division at home (52). The victim’s position acknowledges that decades of racial prejudice in labor, politics, medicine, housing, and ecological safeguards have had lasting repercussions that require redress. From this angle, the best way to remedy prior discrimination is to consider cultural history when making legal decisions. On the flip hand, the perpetrator viewpoint downplays the persistent impacts of prior prejudice and insists that there must be strong evidence of a specific discriminatory intention for a civil claim to be legitimate (Benz 52). In today’s courts, the discrimination purpose ideology of the offender perception has wholly replaced the pledges of the victim standpoint that were used in the late 1960s, as shown by our culture’s fixation with memos and emails that can establish the racism and responsibility of specific people (Benz 53). The transition from a plaintiff to a perpetrator viewpoint in the courts corresponds to the change from Keynesian to capitalist fiscal guidelines. Therefore, the emphasis on individual intent enables the courts to make decisions that appear pro-business and in line with neoliberal principles.
Court officials intervene in situations when minorities, such as Black Americans, lack jury duty in judicial proceedings due to their race or color. Such cases show the Court’s early realization that state actions against the contents of the Amendment, whether mandated by state statute or done by a judicial officer devoid of a statute, are incompatible with legal mandates. For example, in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), this Court invalidated a state provision that only permitted white people to serve on juries because it denied the colored accused, in that case, the equitable security of the law (Justia 12). One such Court has overturned state court histories on several occasions because such courts did not offer the fundamental elements of a fair trial. As a result, convictions acquired in state courts while a mob was in control are invalid.
Conclusion
Although many states have implemented policy changes to lessen fiscal sanctions’ unfair impact, these initiatives could be more successful. For instance, lawmakers create laws, and the courts impose legal penalties requiring economic fines. However, in a society with a wide disparity in wealth, the markets, not the government, decide on the severity of punishment. Hence, monetary restrictions impose punishments that are uneven by race and culture and promise to become much more so as market-driven economic inequality rises, despite legal restrictions against disproportionate penalties based on the ability to pay.
Works Cited
Benz, Terressa A. “Toxic Cities: Neoliberalism and Environmental Racism in Flint and Detroit Michigan.” Critical Sociology, Vol. 1, No. 45, 2019, pp. 49-62. Web.
Justia (1948). “Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1”. U.S Supreme Court. Web.
Li, Min, and Faxi Yuan. “Historical Redlining and Resident Exposure to COVID-19: A Study of New York City.” Race and Social Problems, Vol. 2, No. 142021, pp. 85-100. Web.
Roberts, David. “The Green New Deal, Explained.” Vox News 23. Web.