Justice priced out of reach
What happens when a state charges people to use its courts? Bentham says a tax on going to law sells the rich a protection it quietly withholds from the poor.
A tax on legal proceedings, Bentham argues, is a levy on the one thing a state exists to supply, justice, and so a way of selling to the rich a protection it denies the poor. A man who cannot afford the duty on a writ cannot sue at all; the tax does not merely raise revenue, it closes the courthouse door by income. His case is that the cost of a service should fall on those who use it, not sit as a general toll, and that a government pricing its poorer subjects out of justice has abandoned the reason it collects taxes at all.
- oppression
- access to justice
- justice
- litigation
- taxation
- poverty
- legal costs
Enter a dialogue
- Someone wronged cannot afford the duty on the writ that would let them sue; what has the law-tax done to them, in your eyes?
- Courts cost money to run, so isn't a modest fee on those who use them simply fair, rather than the injustice you paint?
- How does a charge that closes the courthouse door by income differ from an honest fee for a service freely chosen?
- If access to justice may never be rationed by wealth, what revenue must a government forgo, and where should it look instead?
- A poor man swallows a wrong because suing would cost more than the wrong itself; what does your protest owe him?