The Poor You Have Always With You

The philosopher Santayana warned that those who do not know their own history are doomed to repeat it. That admonition is especially pertinent to discussions of social welfare in Indiana, where assistance programs reflect historic attitudes about poverty and service delivery is largely a product of the state?s political culture. In Indiana, as elsewhere, supporters of social welfare programs and the critics of those programs are still arguing about policies dating to 1349, when England enacted the Statute of Laborers, prohibiting alms, or charity, for those who had the ability to work–that is, to "sturdy beggars." This first attempt to deal with what we would later call welfare was not about providing assistance; it was about forcing people to work.
Continue reading “The Poor You Have Always With You”

Comments

Legal Aspects of High Risk Interventions

As Kennedy and Mohr have noted (2001), the treatment of children by mental health professionals?particularly in an institutional setting?implicates three sets of important, and frequently competing, interests. The first of these is the parental interest in preserving family autonomy: minimizing state interference in decisions made about what constitutes the best interests of their children, and their right to transmit to those children their particular personal and cultural values. The second is the state?s interest in protecting the child, preventing or controlling antisocial behavior, and, in furtherance of those goals, providing a system of mental-health care. Finally, there are the child?s own interests in ?being cared for, loved, and helped to become an autonomous individual with the rights and privileges of an adult? (Hopcroft, 1995).
Continue reading “Legal Aspects of High Risk Interventions”

Comments

Religious Paradigms and the Rule of Law: Thinking in Red and Blue

While lawyers, political scientists and others recognize the more explicitly religious components of America?s current polarization, we fail to appreciate the extent to which conflicting policy preferences are rooted in religiously-shaped normative frameworks. Much like the blind men and the elephant, we encounter different parts of the animal. We see a tree, a wall, a snake?but we fail to apprehend the size, shape and power of the whole elephant.
Continue reading “Religious Paradigms and the Rule of Law: Thinking in Red and Blue”

Comments