Using the law as an instrument of social policy might seem perverse. Until now the balanceof academic opinion has been that the courts do little to help the poor. In theory, the law isnot supposed to discriminate in anyone s favour. In practice, the rich tend to do well in thecourts because the poor cannot afford to go to law themselves ; because the law is said to favour property owners; and because, as Anatole France,a French novelist, sardonically put it, The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich andthe poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.
将法律作为一种社会政策手段听起来似乎有些荒谬。到目前为止,学术界的主流看法是法院在帮助穷人方面几乎毫无建树。理论上,法律不应该区别对待不同的个人或者群体,但实际上,富人通常能在法庭上获得更有利的结果。究其原因,首先是穷人常常因为无力承担相关诉讼费用而不能主动地利用法律;其次,法律也被认为更有利于财产拥有者。法国小说家Anatole France不无讽刺地说道:崇高的法律公平地禁止富人和穷人在桥下留宿、上街乞讨和偷窃面包。
But a new study, by Daniel Brinks of the University of Texas at Austin and Varun Gauri of theWorld Bank, takes issue with this view. The law s record, they argue, is mixed: pro-poor insome countries, regressive in others. But on balance it is much better for the poor thanconventional wisdom suggests.
【2015考研英语阅读法律与穷人】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30