NCJ Number
141372
Journal
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1991) Pages: 103-111
Date Published
1991
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The author postulates that most disputes over remedies in civil rights cases have nothing to do with remedies and everything to do with substantive entitlements.
Abstract
Remedies are designed to track entitlements, to give people their due. When someone objects to a particular remedy, the objection is almost always disguised as an objection to the definition of what is due. Systematic differences prevail in the emphasis of individuals who think that rights are personal and that the government should assure equal treatment and individuals who believe that rights belong to groups and that equality of outcome is the most important. Conclusions reached about individual versus group rights are discussed in terms of school and housing desegregation, judicially-imposed taxes, employment quotas, jail administration, and judicially-directed voting. 12 footnotes