Discussion - Law and Society Many Laws Many Orders

Law and Society Many Laws Many Orders Discussion

1. Please provide two examples of legal pluralism provided in chapter five
2. What does Calavita mean when she states, "Gaps in the rules of public-private jurisdiction occasionally surface, and accountability sometimes falls through the cracks of these multiple legal orders (93)."
3. Can you give me an example of what this might look like outside of the Blackwater example given in the chapter? If you're not sure, just do your best to give a response.
4. On page 97, Calavita states, "It is still open to debate in law and society circles whether it is productive or counterproductive to bestow the term 'law' on rules, norms, and practices that vary widely in their degree of institutionalization and in their modus operandi." Do you see this as productive or counterproductive? Please explain why.

Read the book Chapter 5 (p.85-104)from the  

CHAPTER FIVE Many Laws,

The gym I frequent is a franchise of a national chain. Recently, it established a new policy for gaining access. We used to have to show our membership cards and identifi cation, but this routine was replaced last year with a high- tech machine. To open the turnstile now, I digitally enter my phone number and place my right index fi nger on a small infrared glass that scans it. The other day I noticed a stern warning on the counter next to the fi ngerprint scanner: “All members must show membership cards and photo ID’s to gain entrance.” Right behind it, but less obvious, was another advisory: “Members no longer need to show cards and ID’s.” Perplexed by the inconsistency and ever curious about such insignifi cant details of life, I asked the sta= about the dual signage. It turns out that the policy of corporate headquarters is infl exible on this matter: All members must show membership cards and IDs, and local chains must post signs to that e=ect. But my particular gym—with its new electronic system of telephone number and fi ngerprint scanning (itself an illustration of the penetration of lawlike processes into our everyday lives)—has no need for the old- fashioned cards and has its own policy that refl ects this local reality. Their solution is to post both signs. Legal pluralism is like that—two or more sets of laws and legal practices operating (more or less) at the same time in the same place. The most familiar and straightforward example of legal pluralism for the American reader is the U.S. system of federal, state, and local laws. In every city, town, hamlet, and county across the United States, people go about their daily lives facilitated by, confronted with, and otherwise navigating a complex web of legal jurisdictions. These systems are often nested in and / or are complementary to each other (unlike my contradictory gym rules), with each jurisdiction having its own responsibilities. For example, the federal government establishes

federal income tax rates, and every April we send our checks to the Internal Revenue Service. Most states have their own income tax laws too, and the local property tax system within each city or county completes this picture of tax- law pluralism. This plurality is incremental, with one tax system layered on top of the other and not in direct competition with it. The federal government also has a slew of regulatory agencies, and many states have parallel agencies of their own. For example, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration oversees the workplace conditions of American workers, and most states have their own workplace safety agencies as well. In these cases, federal and state responsibilities are worked out through reams of technical guidelines and customary practices. In some policy realms, the federal government sets a fl oor for state policies or a default position. Minimum wage laws are a case in point. While the U.S. Congress sets, and the president signs into law, a federal minimum wage standard, each state can set a higher—but not lower—minimum wage for workers in their state. So, for example, the federal minimum wage in spring 2009 is $6.55 an hour, but in California the mandatory minimum is $8 an hour. Some other states use the (it must be said, meager) federal rate, but none are permitted to go below that fl oor. Issues arise from time to time as to which jurisdiction trumps the other in a particular legal arena. Local policies relating to the treatment of immigrants provide a good example of such jurisdictional confl icts. A number of states and cities have passed laws and ordinances against renting housing to undocumented immigrants; barring children of undocumented immigrants from public schools; and otherwise making life di