Fechtor 1

Caleb Fechtor Prof. Kalt Core Social Sciences 15 April 2013 Americas Punitive System: Friend or Foe? The United States of America has, since its establishment, represented a bastion of opportunity, freedom and democracy; many people, regardless of their nationality, pride our country for these reasons. Our countrys Declaration of Independence, advocates life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and our Constitution promotes well-being and independence for most of its citizens, at least that is how it seems (Declaration of Independence). However, many fail to consider those who have been, either explicitly or implicitly, ignored, slighted and downright oppressed by the policies and institutions recognized by the United States Government. Whats alarming about our current punitive system, however, is not only the extent to which private interest corruptly influences it, but also the degree to which the public complies, obliviously, with its corruptness. The best example of administrative oppression can be observed within the abuses demonstrated by the United States criminal justice system. Americas federal prison system, which, over the past thirty years has increased its incarceration rate 790 percent, now imprisons 226,680,000 American citizens; 716 people out of every 100,000 are jailed in our country, not to mention the 5 million on probation or parole (IPSnews). Many, if not all, of these people are victims of an overzealous punitive system responsible for imprisoning more citizens than any other country on earth (IPSnews). To illustrate this problem sociologist Lois Wacquant notes, the carceral system of the United States has now ballooned to proportions such that if it were a city it would be the country's fourth-largest metropolis (Wacquant 5). The immense size of our incarcerated population, not to mention the

Fechtor 2 corrupt nature by which it operates, is enough reason to provoke an extensive examination of it. The American government, which this countrys citizens have been raised to trust, has strong leadership that uses the prison system to repress citizens in order to maintain full state power, and uses its authority to seemingly solve the central socio-economic problems that America has, but instead, furthers them. Furthermore, the American public has been desensitized to the traumatizing effects fostered by the mass incarceration that the government enforces, and conditioned to allow, and actively participate in, a government in which a corrupt criminal justice system remains. The Anti-Prison Movement Assembly Synopsis Many have disagreed with the US penal system, but few have dissented as openly and passionately as those involved in the Anti Prison Movement. Although anti-prison social movements have been around (in different forms) for decades, the first official Anti Prison Movement Assembly was held in 2006 (PeoplesMovementAssembly). This organization, formed due to a shared interest in justice and solidarity against confinement, control, and all forms of political repression, is comprised of various assemblies country wide, and aims to spearhead the anti-prison movement principle and abolish the prison system in its current form completely. Made up of those who distrust our government and see injustice in its abuse of punitive power, this organization characterizes the United States as, A prison empire, founded on the legacy of slavery, which uses racist mass incarceration, widespread criminalization, torture and the targeting of political dissidents to try to solve its fundamental economic and social problems (Peoples). Their reasons for opposing the US prison system are complex and numerous, but their goal is well defined: To dismantle the prison industrial complex (PIC) and build stronger communities (Peoples).

Fechtor 3 Who Mass Incarceration Affects Most The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in state correctional facilities[and] there are currently more than 2 million people in American prisons and jails (DrugWar). A similarly shocking statistic notes that, although the US has only 5% of the worlds population, it has 25% of the worlds prisoners (NAACP). Although the United States government is jailing its citizens left and right, not all groups of our population suffer the consequences of the punitive system equally. With a population of inmates this enormous, what groups in society is our government targeting most? African Americans: African Americans, who were supposedly freed from the oppression of legalized racism after the Civil Rights Movement and abolition of Jim Crow laws, now face repression in new ways, and represent the minority group most affected by the abuse and corruption our judicial policies allow. The United States, although seeming to have eliminated racist governmental policies such as Jim Crow laws, has not. Instead, it has replaced the likes of Jim Crow with criminal record based discrimination, which is a form of racism reborn in new form-tailored to the needs and constraints of [our] time (Rose, Alexander 3). This is due, scholar Michelle Alexander believes, to an era of colorblindness in which we, rather than rely on race, use our criminal justice system to label people of color criminals and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind (Alexander 2). Although African Americans make up about 30 percent of the United States population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned, and are imprisoned at a rate 6 times higher than whites (AmericanProgress). In reality, as researcher Heather Rose points out, When race is considered, the rate by which the United States incarcerates its citizens is not proportionate with racial representation in its society, nor does it correlate with documented criminal behavior (Rose).

Fechtor 4 Furthermore, there is an extremely disproportionate magnitude of incarceration of low-income people of color, a stark disparity which alludes to a shocking fact: a black male has about a one in three chance of going to prison during his lifetime (Rose). It is clear that our incarceration rates are astonishingly high, especially for certain minority groups like African Americans, but to even begin deconstructing racist, criminal record-based discrimination we must realize its nature as a multifaceted issue and racism as a highly adaptable social phenomenon, and examine the ways in which the government as encouraged racist policy (Rose, Alexander 3). The US Government has sponsored certain programs that further criminal record based discrimination, such as those instated during Americas War on Drugs. More succinctly put, today it is perfectly legal to discriminate against criminals in nearly all the ways it was once legal to discriminate against African Americans (i.e. denial of right to vote, exclusion from jury service, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and ineligibility for pubic benefits) (Alexander 2). Policies like mandatory minimums, and the three strikes laws mandate specific prison time for crimes committed regardless of the circumstances of an individual case which cause prison overcrowding result in the false notion that we need to build more prisons in order to incarcerate our way to public safety (Rose). This tremendous expansion of the criminal justice system results principally from disparate enforcement of drug laws in communities of color which suggests disproportionate incarceration rates in terms of race (Rose). Hispanics: African Americans are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites, but they are not alone. Hispanics, the ethnic group with the fastest growing rate of imprisonment (increasing from 10.9% of all State and Federal inmates in 1985, to 15.6% in 2001), are also incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of whites (SentencingProject). Similarly, despite equal rates of drug use

Fechtor 5 proportionate to their population, Hispanics are twice as likely as whites, and equally as likely as blacks, to be admitted to state prison for a drug offense (Sentencing). Unfortunately, within the United States there remains a racist notion that associates Hispanics with illegal immigration and crime, which, of course, shouldnt always be the case. Due to this stereotype, Hispanics are often categorized as illegal immigrants, and thus criminals, (even if they are neither of these things) and scorned in the eyes of public, and law. These stereotypes are part of the reason why the deck of the criminal justice system seems to be stacked against them, and also why, for example, Hispanic male arrestees are the least likely to have their cases dismissed [in court] (Sentencing). However, despite the public perception that Hispanic immigrant communities are riddled with crime, studies show the involvement of Hispanic immigrants in crime is less than that of US citizens (Sentencing). Like African Americans and others who suffer similar abuse from the criminal justice system, Hispanics incarcerated endure many injustices after being released from prison. These consequences, including denial of right to vote, exclusion from jury service, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and ineligibility for pubic benefits and others, all promote the inequality of the incarcerated individual. Women (Particularly African American & Hispanic Women): Our criminal justice system does not only fixate on minority groups like African Americans and Hispanics; Women, whose federal incarceration rate climbed a stunning 646 percent between 1980 and 2010, are also targets (WomensPrisonAssociation). In the last few decades women have been incarcerated at a rate nearly twice the rate of increase for incarcerated men (Sentencing, WPA). Over 205,000 women remain in jail today (Sentencing). Why have women been incarcerated at an increasingly high rate in the past forty years? There remain various theories; some claimed that increased arrests of women were evidence that the feminist movement was driving new trends in womens involvement in crime and others countered saying

Fechtor 6 that the increased incarceration rate was due to a crack down in categories conceived as traditionally female such as shoplifting, prostitution and passing bad checks (WPA). Another, more popular theory, sees the war on drugs as the cause and notices that, Despite their roles as relatively minor players in the drug trade, womendisproportionate numbers of them African American and Latinahave been caught in the net of increasingly punitive policing, prosecutorial, and sentencing policies (WPA). This theory, which parallels other evidence suggesting high incarceration rates are partially inflated due to the war on drugs, also introduces the idea of those suffering from a kind of double jeopardy: women who are also African American or Hispanic, and because of this are set at a particular disadvantage. The idea of double jeopardy can be summarized in one alarming statistic, African American women are three times more likely than white women to be incarcerated, while Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely than white women to be incarcerated (WPA). Similarly, one national profile of women offenders suggests the woman inmate population is, Disproportionately women of colormost likely to have been convicted of a drug-related offensefrom fragmented families that include other family members who also have been involved with the criminal justice system [and are] survivors of physical and/or sexual abuse as children and adults(WPA). These facts suggest that women are often victims of incarceration due to their race, disease of drug addiction (paired with strict drug laws enforced during the war on drugs), and because they have already been predisposed to, and assumedly disadvantaged by, the criminal justice system. There is debate over the reason for womens rising incarceration rates; there is no debate, however, that it is occurring.

Fechtor 7 Political & Economic Interest in PIC Maintenance and Expansion: Vast data has revealed the presence and increase of mass incarceration, the groups most affected by this increasing imprisonment rate, and the costs that those incarcerated suffer (even after being released), but the big question remains; why would an increase in incarceration benefit private business, and what interests would the government have that would encourage them to sponsor programs that promote mass incarceration? As observed in statistical figures, racist tendencies (previously discussed) definitely remain one motive behind governmental mass incarceration. However, these racist tendencies alone are not the only reason incarceration rates sore; the government has also been influenced by various political and economic motives that advocate maintaining and expanding the PIC. The government, although seeming to solve our socio-economic crises, has had a huge hand in furthering them, but more notably, covering them up. Scholar Caleb Smith mentions, governments at all levels began using prisons to manage a whole range of social problemsmental illness, drug addiction, vagrancy, and, above all, poverty itself (Smith). Some evidence has implied that the government has covered up its flaws and economic emergencies by making the function of incarceration the mere warehousing of the poor (Smith). Wacquant sees the situation in a similar light, saying "Incarceration has de facto become America's largest government program for the poor" (PrisonsOfThePoor, 69). "In short," Wacquant expanded, the government sees those incarcerated as the sub proletariat that mars the scenery and menaces or annoys the consumers of urban space," and thus seeks to sequester them in prisons (Smith, Wacquant, 5). The government has had a huge role in shaping media and the public view, which have advanced mass incarceration. The hyper expansion of the prison system, Wacquant notices, has been accompanied by "a new cultural

Fechtor 8 industry of the fear and loathing of (lower-class and dark-skinned) offenders," which alludes to the role that media has had in this issue (Smith, Wacquant 5). The media often depicted inmates incarcerated during the War on Drugs, for example, as malicious, often African American, criminals. In reality, however, most imprisoned during the height of the War on Drugs were petty drug retailers, prostitutes, beggars, the homeless, drifters, and perpetrators of graffiti and other urban depredations (PrisonsofPoverty, 16). Most notable, perhaps, are those propaganda campaigns that, in the 1990s for example, linked the new security of [New York Citys] urban spaces to its distinctively aggressive law-enforcement policies (Smith). In this example, the media, undeniably influenced by government propaganda, altered the public perception on the topic, and embellished the necessity for such overzealous punitive measures in order to justify drastic incarceration rates. Initially, legislation like the Hawes-Cooper Act, the Ashurst-Sumners Act, and the Walsh-Healey Act prohibited the sale of prison labor goods to any entity other than state-owned institutions and inmates, the cheapest source of labor, were an illegal labor source for private businesses (Thompson, 39). However, since private businesses have always sought cheap sources of labor, and since incarceration rates have skyrocketed since the beginning of the War on Drugs, politicians and businessmen began discussing how to link work and imprisonment in newly productive ways (Thompson, 39). Collaboration between the public and private business sectors seemed to aim to "modernize prison industries by encouraging them to adopt free world business practices," but their actual goal was to eventually have "proceeds from the sale of prison-made goods and services to cover . . . the total cost of production (Thompson, 39). As incarceration rates continued to rise steeply, there was a more powerful push by private companies to legalize the cheapest labor source: prison labor. In the early 1970s, after the passage of Justice System Improvement Act, and the conservative businesses and tough-on-crime politicians had come together,

Fechtor 9 private businesses were once again able to tap into a seemingly limitless supply of prison labor and the profits it promised (Thompson 40). This marks a huge change in the structure of Americas punitive system, and the beginning of an era in which those incarcerated would increase, not to mention, suffer greatly due to the interest of private companies. By the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, many huge companies seeking to profit from the nations post-1960s embrace of mass incarceration made matters worse in an attempt to access prison labor (Thompson, 41). Many huge companies like Walmart, Hewlett-Packard and McDonalds joined The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an influential political lobby committed to beating back unions, locking people up, and accessing cheap labor in ways that businesses had not been able to do for nearly a century (Thompson, 41). From there, these companies began, "Lobbying for passing harsher sentencing for non-violent offenses including three-strike laws, mandatory sentencing, and truth-insentencing[and] did so by spending a fortune in the political arena. In the first decade of the twenty-first century such corporations spent over $22 million lobbying Congress with the CCA hiring 204 lobbyists in 32 states and GEO hiring 79 lobbyists in 17 states. They also expended millions on political campaigns, including at least $3.3 million at the federal level and, since 2001, more than $7.3 million to state candidates and political parties (Thompson, 41). In direct contradiction to the original legislation passed on this matter, prisons had become appealing places for corporations to do business, (Thompson). In other words, private companies with rich and powerful leaders who often lobbied within our government had direct interest in maintaining and increasing the prison population because it would allow them an excessive amount of cheap labor.

Fechtor 10 Anti-Prison Movement Assembly, Cont. & How American Citizens Have Ignored the Issue of Mass Incarceration: The Anti-Prison Movement Assembly, in its Draft Resolution written and published in 2010, established an extensive list of actions they would need to take in order to achieve the abolishment of the prison industrial complex (Peoples). Their plan, which intends to obstruct the growth of the prison system from various angles, also seeks to focus on groups most negatively affected by the high rates of incarceration. Realizing that in order to dismantle the prison industrial complex the Anti-Prison Movement Assembly would need to make progress in social reform, they decided to focus on, Supporting the efforts of diverse anti-prison organizations as part of a shared movement against repression in all its forms, including political, racial, gender, sexuality, economic, disability and age, legal status, HIV status, national origin, immigration status, and alleged gang affiliation (Peoples). Similar in this regard, The Movement plans to fight for the full civil and human rights of currently and formerly incarcerated people. This includes, support of leadership and leadership development that advocates ending all forms of discrimination based on legal status for formerly incarcerated people.creating community-based models of restorative and transformative justice, and promoting physical, mental and emotional health and healing inside and outside of prisons (Peoples). By supporting these causes, members of the Anti-Prison Movement hope to see social reform, which would support the progress of their primary goal: prison abolition. In a more direct statement against Americas prison system, The AntiPrison Movement campaigns to obstruct prison programs by directly opposing various legal policies. demands an, Immediate end to the death penalty, life without parole, solitary confinement, mandatory minimums, the incarceration of youth in Of these, the Anti-Prison Movement

Fechtor 11 adult facilities, behavior modification/communication management units, all forms of torture, the war on drugs and the criminalization of youth, immigrants and gender nonconforming people (Peoples). Furthermore, they oppose the foundation of any new jails, juvenile or immigrant detention facilities and seek to drastically reform parole procedure. The Anti-Prison Movement members understand that these suggested reform pleas, although beneficial to the cause, are not sufficient to halt persistence of the prison system. For this reason, they advocate a more active resistance to the cause by sponsoring the following activities: holding coordinated local days of actionon International Human Rights Day, supporting economic development opportunities for people before and after incarceration, backing reunification of families torn apart by the prison industrial complex. by supporting the full repeal of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, and by encouraging social movements to review their hiring process, and their bylaws.to determine if there are any barriers to full employment or inclusion of people with convictions (Peoples). It is their hope that by taking these actions, they will at minimum raise awareness of the discriminations and exploitations furthered by the United States punitive system, and ideally, influence government leadership to, at minimum, reform the prison system. At the end of the day, the Anti-Prison Movement seeks to raise awareness on this subject because one hindrance to prison reform and abolition is the publics stance on the issue. The prison system has been engrained in the development of American politics and society; Because of this, many are hesitant to advocate such a drastic change in our punitive structure. In other words, the majority, those uncomfortable with an idea as radical as prison abolition, push the conversation under the rug, leaving the victims of the prison system without an appropriate discussion on the

Fechtor 12 matter. As scholar Zoe Hammer put it, during her protest of the formation of immigrant prisons in Arizona, Because the term prison abolition sounds radical and dangerous to the ears of U.S. audiences living in the contemporary culture of fear, it is a very challenging idea to communicate, but [we] attempted to meet this challenge in a number of ways: by listening to and starting with the visions of local audiences; by introducing multiple perspectives into the discussion; and by broadening local definitions of community to include all groups of people impacted by prisons (Beyond Walls and Cages). The Anti-Prison Movement hopes to conquer this fear of prison reform by revealing the true nature of the prison system, the difficulties suffered by minority groups it most directly affects and the reasons why it should be abolished. Our biggest obstacle to awareness on the subject of the corruptness of mass incarceration is our inability to accept a future without prisons. Researcher Shana Agid, in her co-authored book Teaching Against the Prison Industrial Complex, agrees stating, For manydoing away with prisons absolutely just seems

impossible, politically and morally. It is as if the logic of incarceration has become so inexorable that we simply cannot imagine our lives or our safety without prisons (Teaching, 2). Agid notices others were clearly influenced by the distorted prisoner image exerted by the media, and stated that these people found,
[Prisons,] although overly relied upon in the United States necessary institutions to house those members of society who have caused certain kinds of harm, such as murderers, rapists, and perpetrators of hate crimes (Teaching). Furthermore, as the NYU Press notices, The public has been largely indifferent to the proliferation of life sentences and of disproportionate arbitrary punishments in the United States. Likewise, the political process has failed to engage in serious debate about this issues (NYUPress).

Fechtor 13

This overwhelming evidence suggests the government not only neglects entertaining a debate on the issue, but also that, due to media and government influence fueling statistically unsupported stereotypes, the American public is unaware of the issue at hand, and unwilling to address it. All signs point to the fact that a corrupt and privately influenced punitive system remains in America, guilty of covering up socio-economic disparities within its system. However, it is important to recognize that the public is also partially responsible for allowing mass incarceration to proceed. What should replace our current system remains unclear. However, what is clear is that our current system in the current form isnt just; there is ample evidence that suggests our government is complicit of exploitation, racism, and abuse. If we seek to live up to our own standards declared in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which promise liberty and equality under the law, it is crucial we re-examine our government and its punitive system. Mass incarceration, which the government has supported not for legal reasons, but due to corruptive private influence, has swiftly and sneakily undermined millions of our citizens constitutional rights. It is the goal of the Anti-Prison Movement Assembly to seek prison abolition for this reason. Testimonies do support, however, a less radical approach than prison abolition may be necessary in order to gain public support. Majority public backing for this movement may be hard to find, since it is the rights of the minority that are being trampled. However, if our government is legally and corruptly oppressing the rights of minority groups now, whos to say a greater majority wont be at risk in the future?

Fechtor 14 Works Cited/Consulted

Alexander, Michelle. "Symposium: Mass Incarceration: Causes, Consequences, and Exit Strategies: The New Jim Crow." The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law (2011): 1-16. Print. Andrew Burridge. and Matt Mitchelson. and Jenna M. Loyd. Beyond Walls and Cages: Prisons, Borders, and Global Crisis. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2012. Project MUSE. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.) "Buy a Declaration." The Declaration of Independence. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2013. "Criminal Justice Fact Sheet." NAACP. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013. Kristina DuRocher. Raising Racists: The Socialization of White Children in the Jim Crow South. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2011. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. "Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies." Justice Policy Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013. Jason Haslam. "The State of Prison." American Quarterly 60.2 (2008): 467-479. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. "INTER PRESS SERVICE." IPS U.S. Prison Population Seeing "Unprecedented Increase" N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013. Stetson Kennedy. Jim Crow Guide to the U.S.A. The Laws, Customs and Etiquette Governing the Conduct of Nonwhites and Other Minorities as Second-Class Citizens. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2011. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. Martinot, Steve. The Machinery of Whiteness: Studies in the Structure of Racialization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. Peterkin. and Patricia Zimmerman. and Christina Voight. and Sean Pica. "Life Capacity Beyond Reentry: A Critical Examination of Racism and Prisoner Reentry Reform in the U.S." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 2.1 (2008): 21-43. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. "Prisons & Drug Offenders." Welcome. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2013. Amy L. Reynolds. and Jacob N. Sneva. and Gregory P. Beehler. "The Influence of Racism-Related Stress on the Academic Motivation of Black and Latino/a Students." Journal of College Student Development 51.2 (2010): 135-149. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. Heather Rose. and Glenn E. Martin. "Locking Down Civil Rights: Criminal Record-Based Discrimination." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 2.1 (2008): 13-19. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

Fechtor 15
Lizbet Simmons. "End of the Line: Tracing Racial Inequality from School to Prison." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 2.2 (2009): 215-241. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. Julia Sudbury. "Maroon Abolitionists: Black Gender-oppressed Activists in the Anti-Prison Movement in the U.S. and Canada." Meridians: feminism, race, transnationalism 9.1 (2008): 1-29. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.