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?
Chapter 4- The New Jim Crow
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??
The New Jim Crow, Chapter 4
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.
The New Jim Crow: Chapter 4
Prior to reading this book and this chapter in particular, I had never really thought of what happens to felons once they are released from prison. I think I can speak for mostly everyone in this class when I say that as a result of the media and society focusing so much on the events leading up to an individual getting into prison, we seldom think of what happens when they get out. On one hand, I could certainly see how (not to sound harsh) the public/media/society wouldn’t care; after all, these individuals are convicted felons that had to have done something to warrant their arrest. However, after reading the chapter I also feel that the government has made it unnecessarily difficult for them to get back on their feet. After all, they are still human beings and paid the price for their actions. It becomes a question of whether it is ethical or not to take someone’s right to vote away, suspend a driver’s license, and to discriminate against them for certain jobs among many other things. Fitting back into society after being released from prison is way more of a task than it should be.
While reading, I also remembered an article in the newspaper that I read two weeks ago. After 38 years in prison, David Bryant was finally released after being wrongly convicted of raping an 8-year-old girl (he was 18 at the time). Rather than explaining the entire story, I will attach the article for anyone who wants to read it, but I couldn’t help but think of how this man’s life is going to be now that he is out of prison. Sure, he is different than what Alexander is talking about in The New Jim Crow because Bryant was wrongly convicted, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t going to struggle just like the others. He even says, “I don’t have a mother, or brother, or sister. I don’t have any place to go. I don’t have a dime to my name. What am I going to do? I still don’t know.” He never learned to drive a car, open a bank account, and I can only imagine that although he didn’t do it, he will not be looked at the same way. Being convicted for rape is not exactly something pleasant. Society often looks down on convicted rapists – innocent or guilty. This poor man’s life and the lives of all those who are released after incarceration will never be the same.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/new-york-city-judge-vacates-conviction-1975-child-rape-death-article-1.1314857
NJC Ch4-5
Chapter 4 expounded on the nature of the obstacles to fixing our prison problem – the problem being: way too many prisoners, and limited rehabilitation opportunity. The obstacles are hard to navigate because they are imbedded deeply in law, and while the laws reflect real concerns, they are tangled and contradictory enough to make it nearly impossible for any ex-felons, even non-violent ones, to re-enter society. This is institutional discrimination in operation – people are considering the laws at face value, and not in the context of other existing laws. They are paying less attention to the potentially problematic situations that can arise for ex-convicts, in part because ex-convicts are a looked-down upon minority.
Chapter 4 Summary
Instead of me and Joseph summarizing Chapter 4 tomorrow in class, here it is now:
- Brave New World
- Most of the time when someone pleads guilty to a minor drug charge he is unaware of all the consequences, such as that he will be excluded from juries and he may lose his right to vote. He also is often not told about the discrimination he will be faced with when he is officially labeled a felon.
- A felon is stuck with the label for the rest of his life. This label can make him ineligible for some government health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing, and federal education assistance. His driver’s license can be suspended and he may no longer qualify for certain jobs. If he gets arrested for another crime he will be treated as a repeat offender, and he cannot enlist in the military or legally own a firearm.
- Not all judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys understand the ramifications of calling someone a felon. Society shuts out criminals and doesn’t let them back in once released from prison.
- No Place Like Home
- Many newly released prisoners have nowhere to go and have a hard time finding somewhere to live because they can’t get any public housing assistance and housing discrimination against felons is legal.
- Clinton’s “One Strike and You’re Out” legislation along with the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 gave public housing agencies the authority to exclude and evict drug offenders and other felons, as well as allowing the agencies to bar applicants who are suspected of using illegal drugs or being an alcoholic. To repeal these decisions, one would need a lawyer, but someone in need of public housing usually can’t afford a lawyer.
- HUD encourages the agencies to screen applicants’ public records and create their own exclusion guidelines. As a result, people can be excluded for even the most minor crime.
- Arrests are enough cause to be rejected by public housing officials whether the arrest resulted in a conviction or a fine or not.
- If a public housing tenant, or guest of tenant, participates in any drug-related activity (in or out of the public housing unit) the tenancy can be terminated and the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that someone can be evicted whether they knew about the illegal activity or not, so innocent people can be evicted and left homeless.
- A study from the McCormick Institute of Public Affairs showed that nearly a quarter of people in homeless shelters had been in prison within the previous year; a California study estimated that 30-50% of people on parole in San Francisco and LA were homeless. Corporation for Supportive Housing in New York State did research showing that when people with criminal records were provided with housing, prison use went down over 40%.
- Boxed In
- In 40/51 jurisdictions parolees are required to “maintain gainful employment” and if they don’t, they can be put back in prison.
- Most states let private employers discriminate based on criminal history whether they were convicted or even only arrested. Also, many professions are being legally barred from hiring people with certain criminal convictions.
- Only 40% of employers are willing to consider hiring an ex-offender but the number goes down to 25% when referring to drug-related felonies, down to 7% for a property-related felony, and less than 1% would hire someone convicted of a violent felony (can you blame them?).
- Also hard for them to be self-employed because felons can be denied professional licenses.
- Most offenders haven’t even finished high school, let alone college.
- The Black Box
- In San Francisco, Ban the Box and All of Us or None got the city government to remove job discrimination because of criminal record by getting rid of the box on job applications for public employment positions. Employers will still be informed, but not until they have looked at the potential employees’ other credentials.
- Some scholars argue that when criminal history is not included, black males will face even more discrimination than when it is because employers will use race and other factors, like education levels and gaps in work history, to discern who likely criminals are and they may end up treating all black men like criminals.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warns employers that flat bans on criminals may be illegal if the employer does not consider the story behind the criminal offense.
- Debtor’s Prison
- Many ex-cons, even ones with jobs, have large debts. Throughout the US newly released prisoners have to pay several agencies. In some places they even have to pay for drug testing. Some service fees include jail book-in fees, public defender application fees, public defender recoupment fees, and fees put on people in residential or work-release programs. Some are charged monthly and failure to pay can result in community control sanctions or modification to the offender’s sentence. Some states have “poverty penalties”-penalties for not paying the other fees
- A former inmate can be charged by multiple departments at the same time and can be forced to give up his/her entire paycheck.
- In some places people “choose” to return to jail because they can’t pay the fees
- Many prison inmates work for very low pay and their accounts are charged for things relating to their incarceration so they can’t save up for when they leave prison.
- Let Them Eat Cake
- Clinton signed welfare reform legislation that ended individual entitlements to welfare and provided states with block grants. Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Program has a five-year limit on benefits and requires all people who benefit to have a job. This law also permanently bars people with drug-related felonies from getting federally funded public assistance. Only 13 states and DC have opted out. Most partially opted out.
- Result is that there are pregnant women, people in recovery or treatment for drug abuse, and people with HIV/AIDS who are denied food stamps because they were caught with drugs once.
- The Silent Minority
- 48 states + DC prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony. Most states don’t allow voting while on parole either. Some states have a set amount of years that a person can’t vote after being released.
- United Nations Human Rights Committee has charged that U.S. disenfranchisement policies are discriminatory and violate international law. Most democratic European countries allow prisoners to vote.
- Each state has a different process for restoring voting rights but most require jumping through bureaucratic hoops and paying fines.
- Following the 2000 election it was reported that had 600,000 former felons been allowed to vote then Al Gore would have won.
- Some who can vote don’t because they fear that registering will bring them unwanted attention.
- The Pariahs
- “We [black men] have three strikes against us: 1) because we are black, and 2) because we are a black male, and the final strike is a felony.” (p. 163)
- People are nervous that it will become a badge of honor to have been in prison in some communities, but studies of some of these communities have shown the opposite.
- Instead of returning home to people who love and care for them, people newly released from prison return home to people who look down on them and are embarrassed by them.
- Eerie Silence
- Mass incarceration isn’t talked about in communities of color because it is so shameful, so many people don’t realize how many others are suffering from silent grief over incarcerated family members
- Passing (Redux)
- Many family members of prisoners lie about their incarcerated relatives. They lie out of shame, to avoid stereotypes, and so it does not impede any social mobility.
- Lying about incarcerated relatives brings about self-hate
- Lying about mass incarceration and keeping it hidden prevents people and communities from healing
- Gangsta Love
- Just because the prison label is normal doesn’t mean it is acceptable.
- “Gangsta culture” is embracing the stigma, and while that is a good coping mechanism, the problem is that “gangsta culture” is embracing criminality. A stigma has been forced upon them, and when they try to embrace it then we condemn them for it and look down on them even more.
- The Minstrel Show
- Minstrel shows were designed by whites to make themselves feel comfortable and entertained by black oppression. Majority of the audience by these were blacks.
- Some say blacks attended them because they felt in on the joke, or some say that they were attracted by the remnants of African culture which were always suppressed.
- Black minstrels were seen as celebrities, even though the basis of what they did was degrading.
- Rap music changed after the start of the War on Drugs and the incarceration of so many young black men. Once that was the new stigma they embraced it in their music.
- The Antidote
- Most people would pity the minstrel who is mirroring the contempt shown toward him by whites and portraying it for their entertainment.
- If we were to hate the crime and not the criminal and show some respect to those leaving prison, mass incarceration may not exist today.
Limited Freedom
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.
Probable cause is incredibly ambiguous. Having been stopped and searched myself several times, both in my car and on foot, it’s not a pleasant feeling. As the author noted, there are sufficient indicators or interpretations of laws for a police officer to stop you for pretty much anything. You can be pulled over simply for driving too well, as if obeying the law to the T is in and of itself suspicious. It used to be that military or “I support my local law enforcement” type bumper stickers were safe havens, distinguishing you from the profiling net. However police trainers have started targeting cars with these types of identifiers, purporting that drug dealers use them as a ruse. Although you can refuse your car to be searched, when they actually bring the dog, they can easily cause the dog to make a false alert. Trainers and dogs are spending hour’s together rehearsing scenarios, and if they want to get in your car believe me they will signal to the dog to bark (I know someone who trains canine units). I also personally know someone who had over $80,000 worth of contraband confiscated. No arrest or paperwork were filed, the officer simply stole the merchandise and drove off.
Alexander raises the issue of the perverse incentive police departments have regarding arrests. Although commissioner Kelly has routinely reminded us that there are no “quotas” that his department must fill, for local law enforcement agencies incentives for funding a bigger.
A Nation Not at War?
The War on Drugs incentivized aggressive law enforcement tactics as well as disproportionate sentencing, threatening those swept up into the criminal justice system. Federal grants and congressional policies to combat drug ownership (not so much dealership) facilitate the existence of a ruthless paramilitary force that is costly and detrimental to society. Law enforcement tactics meant for combating drug use process large volumes of individuals as to catch the one or two individuals that are actually guilty of a crime. Last week we were discussing possible solutions for institutionalized discrimination. Congressional policies such as the three-strike policy or the War on Drugs that are punitive and socially conservative cause a cascade of reforms that neglect societal freedoms and largely benefit the policy-makers that try to garner support of socially conservative voters. One might ask what society would have been like had the War on Drugs not been conceived?
“Reasonable Suspicion”
We all understand the the body responsible for these patterns, conspiracies aside, is law enforcement. Law enforcement officials, however, are given a lot of power when they can deduce reasonable suspicion. Unfortunately, the factors that contribute to the decision to investigate/apprehend a drug use suspect are more present in African American communities; poverty, crime rates, gang violence, etc. Racial profiling, which is a hot topic in recent years, is clear and present in drug arrest patterns today.
The racist pattern of incarceration end up dooming the population that has been incarcerated. In Chapter three, Alexander tells the story of victims who lost rights and welfare possibility because of their crime history. I can only imagine that this leads to further drug use/arrest etc.
My question is: how can we intervene in this cycle of incarceration and relapse, while maintaining equality in the arrest process?
