Mass Incarceration

Student’s name

Institution’s name

Course number

Date

Mass incarceration is also known as mass imprisonment. It is a term that refers to the unique way that the United States has locked up vast populations in federal and state prisons as well as local prisons. The main reason for mass incarceration as a mode of punishment is the philosophical goal of deterrence since many people believe that imprisonment discourages offenders from committing future crimes.  The prison population began to grow in the 1970s, when politicians used fear and thinly veiled racial rhetoric to push increasingly punitive policies.  Nixon started this trend, declaring a “war on drugs” and justifying it with speeches about being “tough on crime.” But the prison population truly exploded during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. When Reagan took office in 1980, the total prison population was 329,000, and when he left office eight years later, the prison population had essentially doubled, to 627,000. This staggering rise in incarceration hit communities of color hardest: They were disproportionately incarcerated then and remain so today. (James Cullen july2018)

Mass incarceration is a social problem since the inequality it brings is sizeable and enduring for three main reasons; it’s invisible, cumulative and intergenerational. The inequality is invisible in the sense that institutionalized populations commonly lie outside our official accounts of economic well-being. Prisoners, though drawn from the lowest ranks in society, appear in no measures of poverty or unemployment. As a result, the full extent of the disadvantage of groups with high incarceration rates is underestimated. The inequality is cumulative because the social and economic penalties that flow from incarceration are accrued by those who already have the weakest economic opportunities. Mass incarceration thus deepens disadvantage and forecloses mobility for the most marginal in society.(James Cullen July2018) Finally, carceral inequalities are intergenerational, affecting not just those who go to prison and jail but their families and children, too.

The scale of incarceration is measured by a rate that records the fraction of the population in prison or jail in an average day. From 1980-2008, the United State incarceration rate climbed from 221 to 761 per 100,000. In the previous five decades from 1920s through to 1970s, the scale of punishment in America had been stable at around a 100 per 100,000. Though the rate of incarceration is nearly eight times its historic average, the scale of punishment today gains its social force from its unequal distribution. (Bruce Western, Becky Pettit, 2015).  The massive increases in imprisonment might be justifiable if public safety were dramatically improved. Yet despite some accounts suggesting quite beneficial effects of incarceration on crime rates, the majority of the evidence now suggests either that incarceration’s effects on crime are not nearly as large as once suspected or that the crime-fighting benefits of imprisonment have so diminished over the last few years of the 20th century and the early 21st century that incarceration is now a much less effective method for crime control than it was before the 1990s. Given the high rates of imprisonment and racial disparity in imprisonment, incarceration may be significant as a generator of social inequality. (Christopher Wideman 2014)

Most of the growth in incarceration rates is concentrated at the very bottom, among young men with very low levels of education. In 1980, around 10 percent of young African American men who dropped out of high school were in prison or jail. By 2008, this incarceration rate had climbed to 37 percent, an astonishing level of institutionalization given that the average incarceration rate in the general population was 0.76 of 1 percent. Even among young white dropouts, the incarceration rate had grown remarkably, with around one in eight behind bars by 2008. The significant growth of incarceration rates among the least educated reflects increasing class inequality in incarceration through the period of the prison boom. (Western, & Pettit, 2018)

In the last few decades, the institutional contours of American social inequality have been transformed by the rapid growth in the prison and jail population. America’s prisons and jails have produced a new social group, a group of social outcasts who are joined by the shared experience of incarceration, crime, poverty, racial minority, and low education. As an outcast group, the men and women in our penal institutions have little access to the social mobility available to the mainstream. Social and economic disadvantage, crystallizing in penal confinement, is sustained over the life course and transmitted from one generation to the next. This is a profound institutionalized inequality that has renewed race and class disadvantage. Yet the scale and empirical details tell a story that is largely unknown.

  Although there is scholarly consensus about how to define mass incarceration, there is some level of disagreement over its causes and consequences. Some say it deters and incapacitates; others say that it weakens poor families, keeping them socially marginalized. While some have advanced a functionalist argument as to the causes of mass imprisonment, suggesting that it is the fourth “peculiar institution” for the control of African Americans—following slavery. Others have argued that a combination of cultural shifts, political realignments, changes in job prospects for low-skilled men, and perhaps most importantly, legal changes have driven the dramatic increase and absolute disparity in rates of imprisonment over the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Yet despite some accounts suggesting quite beneficial effects of incarceration on crime rates, the majority of the evidence now suggests either that incarceration’s effects on crime are not nearly as large as once suspected or that the crime-fighting benefits of imprisonment have so diminished over the last few years of the 20th century and the early 21st century that incarceration is now a much less effective method for crime control than it was before the 1990s.

The shift in criminalizing Blacks is seen by Tuch and Martin (1997) as a shift from Jim Crow racism to Laissez Faire racism. This racism involves negatively stereotyping Blacks and blaming them for their own economic and social disparities. It also includes not making favorable policy in social conditions and institutions. In other words, society allowed Blacks to try to reach for opportunities, but the system is designed to make it extremely difficult for them to do so. One way in which society makes it more difficult is by developing policies and laws like “tough on crime” tactics aimed to reduce crime. Furthermore, this racism has caused the development of several “colorblind” laws that target minority populations indirectly. An example of this can be seen in Schlesinger’s (2008) study in which he argues that mandatory terms and sentencing enhancements has led to mass racialized incarceration. A significant portion of the studies focused on sentencing and downwards departure. Downward departure is when the sentencing judge can impose a lower sentence than the statutory minimum based on factors such as mental capacity, immaturity, or criminal role. This makes the crime less serious than the general crime listed in the original sentencing guidelines.

According to Kubrin and Stewart’s (2006) study, when offenders are released back into their neighborhoods, they seek resources in their neighborhood to successfully integrate back into society; however, when that is not present the probability of them returning to the criminal justice system is significantly higher. Moreover, when individuals in neighborhoods have high rates of crime, poverty, and high social disorganization, the risk of youth falling into the criminal justice system also increases. Harris’s (2010) study finds that Blacks who find themselves in these neighborhoods are at a higher risk to become incarcerated than whites.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the incarceration system has significantly affected and disadvantaged several people. Throughout history, it is evident that the criminal justice system has been specifically punitive against poor uneducated minorities. Although the incarceration rate has lowered in some states, many other states still have severe rates of incarceration rates and even higher rates of recidivism. Racial and economic disparities have played a significant role in the makeup of the prison population and the rate of recidivism.

A significant factor that needs to be addressed is the socioeconomic disparities that are present in the incarceration system and its effects on first offenders and recidivism. Several studies have shown that race also plays a factor when it comes to socioeconomic status and the likelihood of incarceration and the recidivism rate. For example, Black men throughout history have notably been measured to have a significant wage differences in the labor force to white men since the 1950s (Western & Pettit, 2005). Factors like labor and wage, neighborhood, and education differences have a significant impact on predicting incarceration and recidivism. Mass incarceration has significantly affected the opportunity for employment for several first time and repeat offenders, specifically Blacks. As the incarceration rate continued to rise, so did the unemployment rate in the United States. .

Additionally, Western’s study finds that poor Black men who enter the criminal justice system have a significantly higher chance of earning lower wages in the labor system (Western, 2002). This is most likely explained as a result of the stigma that attaches to those who are imprisoned for crimes. Employers are extremely hesitant in employing people with criminal records. Consequently, someone with a criminal record is less likely to be hired than someone without a criminal record. The social organization of neighborhoods, specifically poor ones, have a significant impact on the level of crime and recidivism rate in that particular neighborhood. Many prisoners and ex-offenders are being shunned away from society, which only leads them to continue on their path for criminal behavior. Programs that aim to eliminate stigma on race, gender, and status should become a vital issue when dealing with reintegration. Mentorship and guidance by trained individuals can help many displaced ex-offenders find their path in life. Not only that, but law enforcement tactics and policies need to be revised in order to better aid these programs and make them more successful. By addressing these issues, society can finally begin to bring change to our criminal justice system.

References

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0033.xml#obo-9780195396607-0033-bibItem-0008Kubrin, C. E., & Stewart, E. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165-197.

Pattillo, Mary, David Weiman, and Bruce Western, eds. 2004. Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration. New York: Russell Sage.

The Atlantic Journal 2015