Disrupting the Cycle of Incarceration

Author(s):  
Alonzo L. Plough

This chapter explores the root causes for the high rate of incarceration in the United States and its health-damaging consequences. Reducing incarceration levels, particularly in communities of color and disadvantage, is a vital building block of a Culture of Health. Addressing mass incarceration in the United States, however, requires a range of approaches and tactics that target multiple levels of the complex criminal justice system. The chapter then describes both broad-based solutions and targeted local efforts to break the cycle of incarceration at various points: before arrest, within prison walls, after release, and across generations. Changing the narrative is a feature of many efforts, as activists find new ways to talk about poverty, crime, and prison, and adults with a history of incarceration commit to renewing bonds with their children.

Author(s):  
Aliya Saperstein ◽  
Andrew M. Penner ◽  
Jessica M. Kizer

Recent research on how contact with the criminal justice system shapes racial perceptions in the United States has shown that incarceration increases the likelihood that people are racially classified by others as black, and decreases the likelihood that they are classified as white. We extend this work, using longitudinal data with information on whether respondents have been arrested, convicted, or incarcerated, and details about their most recent arrest. This allows us to ask whether any contact with the criminal justice system triggers racialization, or only certain types of contact. Additional racial categories allow us to explore the racialization of crime beyond the black-white divide. Results indicate even one arrest significantly increases the odds of subsequently being classified as black, and decreases the odds of being classified as white or Asian. This implies a broader impact of increased policing and mass incarceration on racialization and stereotyping, with consequences for social interactions, political attitudes, and research on inequality.


Sociology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meaghan Mingo ◽  
Anna R. Haskins

Mass incarceration is characterized by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment in the United States, which rose drastically from the early 1970s through 2007 or so. Disproportionately affecting young, Black men from neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage, many factors contributed to the steady increase in incarceration from the early 1970s forward. While rising crime rates and harsh societal attitudes toward those convicted of crimes played a part, scholars largely argue that increases in both the likelihood of imprisonment for committing a crime and the length of prison sentences drove the increase in incarceration. Supported by more-intensive and place-based forms of policing, individuals and entire communities faced increasing contact with the criminal justice system. Underlying these policy changes lay deeper social, political, and economic drivers, which often varied by state or other jurisdictions. Ultimately, policy changes mandating longer sentences for repeat offenses (such as three-strike laws) and state and federal laws that increased the length of prison sentences for drug-related and violent crime led to a rising incarceration rate, which meant that far more Americans were serving time and for much-longer sentences than ever before. While the rate of incarceration for men has started to decline slightly, rates for women have risen. During the first two decades of the 21st century, researchers have increasingly focused their efforts on understanding and documenting the collateral consequences of mass incarceration. Beyond the individuals directly impacted, incarceration affects the lives of children and families, neighborhoods, communities, and broader society. Individuals and families especially experience detrimental effects in the education, labor market, and health spheres, while communities suffer “spillover effects,” with even those not directly touched by incarceration affected. With nearly one in thirty-six adults living under some form of correctional supervision (whether in prison or jail, or on probation or parole), and many others “marked” by their past experience with the system, mass incarceration has touched the lives of millions of Americans. Further, racial disparities throughout each phase of the criminal justice system, including in policing, arrest, conviction, and sentencing, have resulted in Americans of color disproportionately experiencing incarceration and its attendant effects. As such, mass incarceration is understood to be a major contributor to 21st-century American inequality along lines of race, class, and gender.


2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Emily Bazelon

My goal in this paper is to tell you a story, a story about race, about crime, about discretion, and about hope. I want to suggest that mass incarceration in the United States is not necessary or wise. It is the product of a criminal justice system that has ballooned beyond reason or recognition from its design.


Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianna Remster

There is considerable overlap between the homeless and correctional populations in the United States. Individuals with a history of criminal justice contact are overrepresented among the homeless and those who have recently been homeless are disproportionately concentrated among correctional populations. Such overlap is in part due to shared risk factors. Poor, low skill, men of color, and individuals with mental illness and substance abuse and dependency issues are concentrated among the homeless and incarcerated. Said marginalized persons end up in correctional facilities, shelters, and the streets primarily because of two large-scale American policies: (1) the criminalization of homelessness and (2) mass incarceration and its detrimental consequences. Concerning the former, homeless individuals typically enter the criminal justice system for minor offenses that are often the direct result of being homeless (e.g., public disorder or petty theft). Yet because they are often unable to afford an attorney or bail and have no place to go if released, homeless individuals frequently remain in jail longer than individuals with stable housing, and over time they accrue lengthy criminal histories. Notably, such practices are not new; homelessness has long been criminalized. For instance, in colonial America, the homeless were sent to poor houses, which in many cases resembled modern prisons. Today, an emerging literature suggests that mass incarceration may contribute to homelessness. Indeed, the time trends overlap: contemporary homelessness grew in tandem with incarceration, beginning in the early 1980s. Over 641,000 individuals exit prison annually, of which a portion become homeless. Obtaining stable housing is not only indicative of successful reintegration, but other forms of reintegration such as employment are often dependent on having stable housing. Furthermore, homelessness is associated with recidivism. Reintegration challenges combined with the consequences of incarceration and the concentration of standard correlates of homelessness in this population help explain why individuals leaving prison are at an elevated risk. The data challenges for studying homeless and justice-involved populations are considerable. Without a permanent address, these highly mobile individuals are missing from many traditional forms of data used by social scientists such as household surveys. As a result, much of the work on this topic is theoretical in nature. Empirical assessments rely heavily on administrative data, such as correctional and emergency shelter records, and ethnographic work. Overall, much work remains to be done to understand the pathways between homelessness and the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, homelessness is a form of severe social exclusion and when combined with the stigma of incarceration, individuals may be doubly disadvantaged. Indeed, individuals with a history of prison or jail spells are among the most disadvantaged homeless, experiencing lengthy and/or repeated homelessness. However, the overlap between homelessness and the criminal justice system can be effectively reduced. Indeed, access to affordable housing saves taxpayer money while maintaining public safety.


Incarceration ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 263266632097780
Author(s):  
Alexandra Cox ◽  
Dwayne Betts

There are close to seven million people under correctional supervision in the United States, both in prison and in the community. The US criminal justice system is widely regarded as an inherently unmerciful institution by scholars and policymakers but also by people who have spent time in prison and their family members; it is deeply punitive, racist, expansive and damaging in its reach. In this article, we probe the meanings of mercy for the institution of parole.


Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 297-302
Author(s):  
Benjamin L. Berger

The three articles offered in this forum on the early history of criminal appeals do us the great service of adding much of interest on this important but neglected issue in the development of Anglo–North American criminal procedure. The opaqueness of the legal history of criminal appeals stands in stark contrast to their centrality and apparent naturalness in contemporary criminal justice systems in England, Canada, and the United States. These three papers look at the period leading up to and immediately following the creation of the first formalized system of what we might call criminal appeals, the establishment of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved (CCCR) in 1848. This key period in the development of the adversary criminal trial was marked by both a concerted political effort to codify and rationalize the criminal law and by profound structural changes in the management of criminal justice.


Author(s):  
Robert A. Ferguson

This chapter addresses the question of whether Americans like to punish. The United States clearly punishes more heavily and for longer periods than other countries, with comparable social and political values. One can land in an American prison for life over minor offenses—a punishment not used for serious offenses in Western Europe. The leading comparativist on criminology, James Whitman, argues that a politics of dignity has instilled mercy and mildness in European systems, while leveling impulses, distrust of authority, and too much power in the people is said to have left the United States with a criminal justice system long in degradation and short on mercy.


Author(s):  
Corey Rayburn Yung

The American criminal justice system regarding sex is not just logically incoherent, it is also often morally bankrupt because it remains unexamined and poorly understood. This Article contends that there are actually common roots underlying the seemingly oppositional forces of social panic and denial, which explain why the United States has an endemic sexual violence problem. Both panic and denial reinforce the implicit, and sometimes explicit, desire to avoid substantive engagement with socially contentious issues related to sex. The use of residency restrictions and civil commitment fit the modern social goal of putting sex offenders out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Yet, those same desires also explain America’s unwillingness to believe victims of sexual violence and police failure to properly investigate criminal complaints. In this way, sex panic dovetails with sex denial—in both instances, American culture only permits a limited discussion and understanding of sex and sexual violence. The result is that our nation fails to take sex crime complaints seriously while overreacting to the few convictions that emerge from the hostile criminal justice system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document