Professor León
Criminal Justice Seminar 389
September 9th, 2019
Democracy and the Carceral State in America
1. In this article the author makes a clear distinction that the American penal system has bones in it’s closet, both from the past and present. It seems that whenever observations are made about the Carceral State, the findings seem to get swept under the rug by higher political and economic powers. The Carceral State here in America seems to have been expanding since the time of Tocqueville, but appears to have exponentially expanded since the 1970s. The penal system created by politicians and other authority figures has led to mass incarceration of disportionately black and latino communities. The U.S. penal system enthusiastically locks up minorities without even considering the negative effects on community, family, and future of the imprisoned individual. The author states that there are “nearly 2.3 million people sitting in jail or prison today in the United States”(Gottschalk 289). This goes to point out that the United States is leading other nations with the most amount of its own citizens behind bars. This mass incarceration of American citizens, predominantly of color, has led to the American Dream being lost within these communities. Furthermore, this lost dream is predominantly replaced with hopelessness, broken families, lost privileges and rights, and an inability to access things such as public housing and loans. The author makes the distinction that people who are negatively affected by the Carceral State are not limited to those locked in prison or jail, but extends to the many citizens who have a connection to the criminal justice system, whether it be through probation, parole, or a family member intertwined within the system. The author clearly defines the penal system as broken and in need of fixing. Gottschalk then goes on to show that the Carceral State is now being treated as a money issue by politicians, instead of a social justice issue. It is made clear that the focus should not be on the costs of the carceral system, but on the fact that it is a broken system, which is currently destroying the lives of disproportionate members of society. Because of the high costs of the penal system, it does give activists the opportunity to help bring down the Carceral State. However, the single factor of costs alone will never be able to dismantle such a powerful agency within the United States government. In conclusion, this article shows that the penal system in America has been set up in such a way that it targets demographics of lower minorities, so as long as it does not affect the pockets of wealthy politicians and those of the upper class.
2. The author does a good job of providing numbers and statistics to show precisely how many people are negatively affected by this unjust system. However, when the author talks about how many black individuals could be locked up on a certain day, he does not cross reference it to white individuals, which most likely would have painted a much more vivid reality. Furthermore, it did not mention any numbers or facts in regards to women of color and white women in regards to the Carceral State.
3. Should we keep individuals in bondage because of their past? This is in reference to an inmate who has fully served their sentence, but continues to be discriminated against by being denied federal benefits, voting rights, and the ability to receive occupational licenses.
What is Crime?
1. In this article author Raymond J. Michalowski dives into the meaning of crime, and the practice of criminology and how it has evolved over the years. He made the realization that crime is not necessarily about body count, but that it is how certain groups treat the action which is labeled as a crime. He learned from studying vehicular homicides, that political power and economic interests play a crucial role in determining what gets the attention for something to become a crime and what does not. Michalowski points out that in society it is most often the state that determines what is an acceptable action and what is not, what will be a punishable offense and what will be ignored. Though the state is the body that makes the final decision on crime and law, it is often the dominant class in society that gets its voice heard on what they want legal and what they want illegal. In most societies, the voice of the lower class and individuals who are disenfranchised often have no say in the social ordering of what is crime and what is legal. Therefore, these lower classes of society are usually negatively affected by laws which criminalize actions which pertain to people of lower class status, whereas the rich and elite go unchecked because they do not back laws that would disproportionately affect their well-being. When examining this concept through orthodox criminology, the author pointed to the laws of Jim Crow which negatively affected people of color, but helped white supremisitcs retain their control and power in the Deep South. In this article Michalowski points out the flaws and errors in regards to orthodox criminology and urges that criminology should be about social injury and that it is not just about penal codes. When looking at criminology through a lense of social injury, it opens the door for criminologists to consider issues that orthodox criminologists never would have considered such as social injury through climate change, wrongs committed by political states, women’s rights, and LGBTQ discrimination. In conclusion, the author points to the quintessential fact that crime is not a constant across the board and therefore should be carefully considered when determining penal code.
2. This article connected brilliantly with “Democracy and the Carceral State in America” because it shows that the reason why there is so much ambiguity in regards to the prison system is because lawmakers do not always consider the interests of the lower classes, therefore creating laws that result in people of color being disproportionately incarcerated.
I did feel that the title was somewhat misleading, because it talked more about understanding the concept of criminology and studying crime, than it did explaining what is crime.
3. Are there any absolutes when dealing with what is crime? For instance the U.S believes murder to be wrong and illegal, but some tribal people would believe that it is okay to murder. Is there one thing that would be considered a crime everywhere and always?