collateral_consequences
SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS

Based on what we’ve read, it’s quite obvious that life of a felon after prison is one of prejudice, unequal opportunity, and general hardship, but what is the root of this problem? and why do they occur in such large numbers? Lets ignore race for a second, The US currently leads the world in incarceration rates with 743 of 100,000 citizens currently in jail. In total, this comes out to about 2.3 million total inmates. 2.3 million people, around 40% of which are African American, are in terrible positions upon their release.

We all know that there is a problem here, tens of billions of dollars are being put into both the prison and welfare sides of this process, and the victims of the inadequacies of this are stuck in a position between life as an ex-felon and life as a citizen. If the government can work to increase the efficiency of the prison system, change laws to reflect the time, and buffer the racist patterns of arrest, they could limit the number of ex-felons on the street, thus being able to give them more opportunity.

I think im ready to hear Alexander’s solution, but what is your’s?

In Chapter 4, Alexander talks about how those who have been convicted and deemed a criminal have no way to live a normal life again, no matter how small the crime they did is. All people look at is whether or not you went to prison. They seem to assume all criminals are the same and try to shun out criminals. Alexander tries to show us how hard it is for a criminal to get back on their feet again, when they can simply get evicted from their house and become homeless, and have to pay for all these extra fees once they get out of prison, when they can barely even find a job due to to their record.

She also highlights the importance of their rights being taken away no matter how small the crime they did. It gives this mentality that they are lower than the average person since they have no basic rights. I think there should a line drawn in society. Those who probably made a mistake in college and took some drugs shouldn’t have their whole lives ruined cause of it. I think the government needs to help these people more instead of taking advantage of them. They should be able to connect these people with decent or at least minimum wage paying jobs not jobs that offer them little to nothing as if they’re practically working for free. Is there really no second chance for these people?

I found it rather interesting how Alexander started the chapter off by mentioning Frederick Douglass and his fight against slavery. Alexander compared those who were released from prison to the slaves who were “free by law.” Just as these former slaves were not truly free, people who are freed from prison are still subject to much hate and prejudice. A fine example of this is when a felon asked for an application for housing and he was denied on the grounds that he was an ex-felon.

The reason for such hate is the stigma society places on those who have been to prison. Those who have served jail time are extremely frowned upon and the whole idea of going to prison is heavily stigmatized. Another point to note is that because of this stigmatization, a good majority of those who are released from prison are caught in this cycle of coming back home, finding no job/housing, and going back to prison for committing a petty crime (which they probably needed to commit in order to sustain themselves).

At the end of all this, I find myself asking if our country is ever going to progress if we keep denying people who’ve committed some wrong second chances.

Reading this chapter I was immediately caught up in topics that we had talked about before in class. Again, there were many actions that were directed against criminals and people who had committed a felony. I think I was most surprised that many judges and officials either did not know or chose not to tell those convicted of crimes of the other consequences of being convicted and not serving time in prison.

These consequences included getting your license revoked, not being able to qualify for public benefits, not being able to find a home, and not being able to find a job. Many blacks, women and men, are stuck in a cycle of going to prison, returning home, not being able to support themselves, and then going back to prison because of a small offense. It was also interesting to see how the use of state prisons and jails dropped from 74% to 40% once people who were freed from prison were given housing.

My question is, has the EEOC taken any other measures to help ensure that discrimination doesn’t occur between job applicants who have committed past demeanors verses those who have not? If so, is it effective?

I was particularly intrigued by the idea of stigmatization, and how it is either embraced or acts as a source of shame for those affected by incarceration.  I think a lot of people blame factors like rap music or gangsta style for perpetuating crime, when in reality they are often a result of being forced into a stereotype.  By embracing a stereotype, it is easier to deal with the consequences if the generalizations end up playing out as true.  A person can then act as though it was their upbringing or overall personhood that caused their behavior, rather than an act of their own volition or a flawed justice system.  Certainly drug promoting and misogynistic lyrics do not help solve crime, but they certainly do not directly cause it.  They must be inspired from an ingrained lifestyle of some sort.

I was less familiar with the idea of shaming, particularly among families and church goers.  The very fact that this involves hidden information means that this isn’t a phenomena that is well publicized. All that seems to be represented in the media is persona outlined above, of the typical criminal embracing a crime lifestyle.  It helped me to read Alexander’s examples of actual stories of those that have been harshly impacted by the current criminal justice system.  I think it’s easy to characterize a criminal as entirely in the wrong, as completely deserving of whatever punishment our judicial system sends their way, but it’s important to be aware of the injustices that are inherent to the present standard.

What did everyone find more compelling overall, Alexander’s description of embracing the crime stereotypes or feeling a sense of shame?  Which do you think is a more common response?

-Jacqui Larsen

In this chapter, Michelle Alexander points out all the ways criminals remain criminals, that is to say that once someone is convicted, or even just arrested, for a crime, he is labeled as a felon for life.  Due to the fact that he is now permanently considered a second-class “citizen,” he has very limited resources and that makes it extremely difficult to recover.  His  family may be too ashamed to support him.  He is ineligible for federal aid programs and may not qualify for most jobs.  Even if he has a job, he could still be in debt.  What irks me the most is how some states have “poverty penalties.”  How can people pay for these penalties when they would not afford to pay for the other fees in the first place?  While I understand that these penalties are meant to dissuade people from ignoring payment, it is also keeping people from rebuilding their lives.  “Although ‘debtor’s prison’ is illegal in all states, many states use the threat of probation or parole revocation as a debt-collection tool.  In fact, in some jurisdictions, individuals may “choose” to go to jail as a way to reduce their debt burdens…many states suspend driving privileges for missed debt payments,” which often cause those who were lucky enough to get a job to lose it (156).  I want to know what people think we should do to fix the system.  How to we keep the dangerous criminals from damaging society without harming the ones who want to rebuild/are innocent?

In this chapter, we see yet another side to the problems of the mass incarceration. But one thing that she does in this chapter differently is that she brings in the perspective of a person. She talks about the prisoner who spends more money on transportation than he makes in his work, which spurs in a interesting view of what it means to be a paroled individual.

There is much to criticize about Michelle Alexander’s take on how to write this book. Her belief is that the statistics will speak for themselves. But she uses statistics to back an emotional argument, and every emotional argument needs a good emotional backing.

My question to her is why does she avoid using stories like the Mr. McNair? My belief is that if mass incarceration is really on such a scale as she suggests, she should very easily be able to procure examples of wrongful incarceration and from there show just how powerful her point rings true. By her coming from an unbiased background, where she has only facts to back her up, but no people, she is essentially garnering opposition from people who easily cite the stats as false. But bring in a testimony or twenty, and people will realize just how horrible the situation is.

The biggest solution to all the problems is to educate and to speak out. This has been repeated many times. But why does Ms. Alexander believe otherwise??

It was very distressing to read about the hard life facing newly released prisoners, and the mistreatment that they are forced to put up with, sometimes for the rest of their lives, seemed extreme. However, although Michelle Alexander did manage to evoke some sympathy in me in this chapter, it wasn’t until I was thinking about it afterwards that I realized how hypocritical it all is. It is easy to read Chapter 4 and claim that you would not discriminate against someone with criminal history or an arrest history, even if it is non-violent crime, but we all do it. When we discriminate against people who have been arrested or convicted it isn’t out of racism or misjudgement or lack of knowledge, but out of the desire to keep ourselves safe. There are obviously innocents who get mislabeled as felons, and Michelle Alexander would argue that some people arrested or convicted for possessing drugs should not be labeled as felons. While discretion should obviously be applied when making serious choices that effect other people’s lives and the details of their convictions/arrests should be taken into account, there comes a point when we must put ourselves first.

I found chapter four of The New Jim Crow, to be very illuminating.  It described how former felons released from prison are regarded as sub-humans basically. A very disturbing point that the author drove my attention to was the fact that ex-convicts were stripped of basic freedoms, such as the right to vote and serve on a jury.

Michelle Alexander cites several laws and which interdict the re-integration of former felons to society. I found some of the laws and stipulations to be particularly horrendous. The author mentioned a law that stated if a former prisoner, in public housing, was caught doing drugs, or anyone associated with him even far from the property the convict would be evicted. This is beyond ridiculous. This law can damage and destroy family. It can serve as an impetus to the useful integration of former prisoners in to society. I mean how can society ever expect former prisoners to be productive members if they are all so limited in their resources? If you think about it, they can’t get a job because they are identified as felons via a black box. They have the government and parole officers eyeing their every moment waiting for a wrong move to lock them up. It is as if they are almost destined to go back. By the virtue of society, it seems like these people just like float and can’t develop self-efficacy.

Another interesting point the author noted was how the black youth of America congregates in a sense to celebrate this stigma. She explains how this is a defense mechanism because these adolescents are used to the whole assumption of criminality that by virtue, they accept embrace it. This creates a dangerous situation because criminality should not be celebrated or promoted amongst the youth. In a sense, it seems like society has a drastic and innervating role in shaping the futures of former-felons and people who are thought to be such.