The Poor Law
The Poor Law was a system established since the reign of Queen
Elizabeth I, about two hundred years before the Poor Law Amendment Act
of 1834. In this system the able-bodied poor should be set to work,
whilst the others had to be provided for by their parish of birth. By
1795 when the whole system was under strain, an attempted solution was
the Speenhamland system also know as the allowance system that was
devised in 1795. This was devised to relieve the acute distress of the
poor by giving money to families calculated according to the number of
children and the price of bread.
As the Poor Law was becoming increasingly costly throughout the years,
there had to be change in order to protect the ratepayers and
government alike. Apart from the cost of the Poor Law, other factors
such as War, possible revolution under the influence of 1830’s French
Revolution, ‘laissez faire’, over-population, corruption,
demoralisation, the results of the Royal Commission and the role of
important individuals have helped to convince the government that they
had to react to the distress and abuse that existed and that the Poor
Law was not doing what it was intended to do originally: provide for
those who genuinely needed it. This led to an inquiry into the
situation so as to reform the system and make it more efficient and
cost effective. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) and David Ricardo
(1772-1823) both advocated change and strongly believed that the
abolition of the Poor Law would make wages rise because the poor rate
would no longer be levied and employers could afford to pay more and
therefore everyone would prosper.
By 1830 it has...
... middle of paper ...
...st this and believe that it had other motives
behind it. For example the Marxist perspective maintains that the Act
was “nothing more than a naked class exploitation by the newly
enfranchised middle classes.” Therefore, by holding down the poor rate
by making harsh and unacceptable workhouses, the poor were forced to
work for lower wages. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was the most
significant development in the history of poverty and welfare in the
nineteenth century, but on the other hand it was hated by the poor who
had to live with the threat of the workhouse. From then on workers
were forced to take responsibility for their own economic situation
and had to take employment at any wage. Therefore workers had to find
alternative ways of coping with poverty because the State had
withdrawn its traditional support.
As stated by the author, the “Principle of less eligibility,” meant that those receiving public assistance “should be worse than that of the lowest paid self-supporting laborer.” In a sense this meant if a person dug ditches or scooped human waste for a living, the situation of a public assistance recipient should be much worse. The author points out that in 1834, when the “Poor Law Reform Bill,” passed it enforced the negative attitudes about poverty. Essentially, if someone was poor it was viewed as their fault. Services should never lift a recipient out of poverty, but just provide meager assistance in a stigmatizing way. The author describes how impoverished individuals in England during the mid-1800’s, were viewed in negative, criminal ways if they received assistance. Furthermore, those described as “able bodied and on assistance were particularly maligned in the court of public opinion. Many of the homeless and
Laws and punishments are placed onto society to maintain peace and order. Most laws are defined by a moral code, but there are those who believe laws are in place to suppress the lower class. According to the social reaction theory, “It favors powerful members of society, who direct is content, and penalizes the powerless. . .” (Siegel 190). This theory helps explains how minority street offenders can receive harsh penalties, while white-collar criminals receive lower sentences. According to the author, “And of course, wealthy white-collar criminals are not treated in the same harsh fashion as street criminals even if the social harm they cause is significantly greater” (Siegel 201). Laws related to the war on drugs are an example on how the
Marx expressed many views about the over empowerment of the bourgeoisies in The Communists Manifesto. Marx believed that the working class was not getting paid what they deserved for the quality of work that they were producing. Marx thought that the all workers should be paid the same rather than by social position. For instance, Marx thought that a mineworker should be paid as much as a doctor. Marx states, ?The average price of w...
Economic Injustice in America "Class is for European democracies or something else--it isn't for the United States of America. We are not going to be divided by class." -George Bush, the forty-first President of the United States (Kalra 1) The United States of America was founded on the basis of a "classless society of equals," committed to eliminating the past injustices imposed on them by Great Britain.
In order to improve the economy and raise the poor standard to higher economic status, we must not ignore the poor. We must understand them and leave the punitive attitude in the past.
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
Since the poor contribute nothing, they are draining the resources needed by everyone else. “Since the worlds resources are dwindling, the difference in the prosperity of the rich and poor can only increase,” Hardin writes (Lifeboat Ethics, 170). On the other hand Swift believes that everyone needs help and mercy at some point in their life. If the poor had jobs they would be able to contribute in order to replenish the resources they use. He indicates that, if the affluent were more conservative with the use of their money and resources by buying local goods, there would jobs for the poor and paying taxes in emergency situations would not be so
America focuses on keeping the rich streets clean and the poor streets dirty with a sense of people of color will be placed in poor dangerous neighborhoods with violence and drugs. The news reporters every day file cases of police officers using their power to control and abuse the law by hurting citizens by their image of clothing and color of their skin. In “A Brother’s Murder” a journalist talks about his experience living in a poor neighborhood and how his brother tragically died in a city of crime. No it does not mean it is always out in the public there are cases where officers hide what they did and get away with it. The laws support the officers in their favor in trails depending on the state and how strong the evidence was for the victim. To make matters worse history repeats even in the twentieth century. The type of brutal injustice can go on more centuries because the blindness Americans have towards the issue. In “For My Indian Daughter” a father talks to his daughter in how the world will treat her because she is Native American. Lewis’s life has not been easy and he knows the pain his people including his daughter will face by giving his wisdom to carry on through bad times. Americans will focus more on their twitter updates than to start a peace club and expose the racism going on. The blindness will continue because of the fear of speaking out or the lack of opening pages in a history book. Racism still impacts American society today in the way law and order is carried out, or not carried out, for people of color.
The world is based from two types of laws. Just and unjust laws. In recent years a series of new laws have been adopted. Some of these laws were just and others were unjust. Something that differentiates unjust law from just is it’s an unfairness. In other words, unjust law is something that does not equally apply to everybody. It could be directed to the specific person or group of people. For instance, the law of banning propaganda of homosexuality, making homosexsuals second class citizens who are not entitled to, for example, to express their feelings in public. The law on rallies, forbidding citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms, where they wish. Another, example would be zoning law. Where people have no right of control over
“Poverty is the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possession” (“Poverty”). Throughout history, poverty has been a debilitating social issue that has negatively impacted people and societies. Numerous programs and initiatives dating back centuries have attempted to solve poverty yet it still remains an issue. There are many strategies that help combat or minimize poverty. We will look at how government legislation and social aid programs have impacted poverty and also the factors that ultimately place people in poverty.
Economically there was also inequality in society in this era. There was a lot of competition and in the market and it even made possible to have small societies with equality in order to set an example and change. Robert Owen believed in this and wrote the speech in 1825 “The First Discourse on a New System on Society”. He believed that if people worked together and helped each other in a social system, then everyone could get benefited from this society. In the speech, the reader can see that his idea of this society would be that no one won't be more privileged than others. He had this idea of a union and co-corporation working together to give everyone the same chance to become rich. His ideas would be hard to carry out but that was this
Nealon and Giroux cite Thomas Malthus’ argument when it comes to the amount of the population that is poor. It seems that Malthus’ does not see poverty as a problem for the government to fix through programs and the like. Instead, he sees poverty as a part of a natural, ecological process. Speaking of Malthus, Nealon and Giroux say, “Not only does he assert that throughout human history and in every society a certain segment of the population is inevitably relegated to poverty by virtue of this calculus, but also that aid to the poor would only artificially increase their numbers…” (Nealon and Giroux, pg. 241). Essentially, Malthus implores that attempts to reduce or eradicate poverty through government programs will only make the issue worse. Therefore, it is better for some to remain in bondage, rather than upsetting the balance of a society’s economics. This is opposed to Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt school, who called for liberation nature and humanity. His proposal to accomplishing this was “…by harnessing…the vast achievements of science and technology all too often unleashed in the service of gross exploitation and exclusion.” (Nealon and Giroux, pg. 240).
There are four ideas for the explanation of poverty. One of the first explanations is to blame the individual. Due to the decisions an individual has made, they have driven themselves into impoverishment. In addition to this, the idea argues individuals who are poor are that way because of their poor personal characteristics. People are responsible for themselves being poor because there are plenty of resources out there for the individual to survive. This includes minimum wage, access to public education and public resources, and assisting programs for the impoverished such as welfare. This idea argues that people are responsible for their own futures and success. If they do not put enough effort in, they will stay in poverty. We are within
Nowadays, Judicial Review has been expanded in such extent that it can be argued that any kind of power, statutory or prerogative, will be reviewable. English courts are responsible to handle the manner of the exercise of a public power, in relation to its scope and its substance. In order to achieve this, the Courts will rely on legislative intention an area with a lot of academic debate, those in favour of the ultra vires theory and those of the common law theory. Whether this legislative intention is a convincing constitutional justification will be based on the grounds of judicial review which these grounds give the source of power to the judicial review powers of the Courts. However, there are areas that the Courts should or cannot engage, as they are limited firstly by their constitutional role and secondly by their institutional capacity.
Charles Dickens shows notable amounts of originality and morality in his novels, making him one of the most renowned novelists of the Victorian Era and immortalizing him through his great novels and short stories. One of the reasons his work has been so popular is because his novels reflect the issues of the Victorian era, such as the great indifference of many Victorians to the plight of the poor. The reformation of the Poor Law 1834 brings even more unavoidable problems to the poor. The Poor Law of 1834 allows the poor to receive public assistance only through established workhouses, causing those in debt to be sent to prison. Unable to pay debts, new levels of poverty are created. Because of personal childhood experiences with debt, poverty, and child labor, Dickens recognizes these issues with a sympathetic yet critical eye. Dickens notices that England's politicians and people of the upper class try to solve the growing problem of poverty through the Poor Laws and what they presume to be charitable causes, but Dickens knows that these things will not be successful; in fact they are often inhumane. Dickens' view of poverty and the abuse of the poor