Black and Brown Bodies in CJS
September 9, 2019
Weekly Reading Summary 1
Raymond J. Michalowski’s work called What is Crime? tackles the question of what would be considered to be a crime throughout history. With the definition of crime being set it also could change the way the definition of criminology could be altered. Michalowski starts the article off by explaining why he started to dissect the question of what could be considered a crime. With this question in his mind, he started to think about the concept of orthodox criminology and goes on to use this concept within the rest of the article. Using the term towards finding a clear definition, even if it sounds impossible, for solutions for “crime problems” as he mentions. Where these crimes fall under either being a concern for the public or a crime defined by the state.
Michalowski goes into the history of criminology and some concepts that were not dared to be explored by sociologists such as the concept of lynching. Michalowski explains this to be the concept of ‘constrained criminology’ basically placing the study of crime into three forms of constraints. The overly controlled subject of criminology was placed into the categories of legalist constraint, corporate constraint, and professional constraint, each giving a point on why they were categorized this way. Each constraint gives a point to why criminologist strays away from certain topics involving the law. Legalist constraint going back to the topic mentioned early such as lynching. This constraint on criminology explains the difficulty of examining extreme conditions if they are not going against the law. Corporate constraints go into the field of corporations and social class, for example, the case of Big Tobacco companies having a hand in law-making practices to benefit the companies and those who invest in these companies. Lastly, Michalowski talks about professional constraints in studying certain subjects in criminology. He explained this concept as a danger to one’s career if they dared to go beyond taboo fields of study in criminology.
In conclusion with these definitions of constraints and the history of criminology in the article, Michalowski focuses on the critiques of furthering the study of certain criminological themes. Michalowski introduces intriguing points into why criminology is so limited, especially in the past. Michalowski wants to embed the idea of changing the way we understand crime and not just defining it as the usual view of laws being broken. Since in this case defining crime will ultimately define criminology as well. Michalowski wants to bring different factors into defining both crime and criminology and not just limiting it to the definition of laws and the penal system.
This article kept me on my toes with the concepts it tackled. Rather than focusing on one topic, it made sure to bring in different topics and theories to understand the point of the paper better. Although despite that I found myself stopping to either re-read a section because it was not clear enough or I just did not understand it in general. I also had to stop multiple times to figure out what some words meant but that could also be a positive since it could help me expand my vocabulary.
· Is it possible for more constraints to be foreseen in the future? If yes, would the whole idea of how criminology is taught, be changed?
In Marie Gottschalk’s work labeled Democracy and the Carceral State in America it starts by talking about Tocqueville and the history that their work brought. Tocqueville’s work eases the article into the topic of democracy in America as it gives notes of his study of the new republic. This article focuses on the collision the correctional system or ‘Carceral State’ as Gottschalk claims have born upon American society. Gottschalk goes into the topic of how the penal system has affected people along with the floating question of how fair the current, at least when this article was written, the penal system is. The article notes on how complicated one’s life could get in they ever find themselves within the penal system, it can reshape the way their life would become. For example, people could be denied loans, housing, and even public service from the government. Gottschalk also adds the effects it could have towards the family members of the people who enter the carceral state. Gottschalk even adds statistics on how children of parents in the correctional system are affected.
Gottschalk talks about the potential decrease in mass incarcerations starting at the time of the Great Recession. During the Great Recession, there were not enough funds to keep people incarcerated, especially for a long period. This has started the question of how to control the number of people that the U.S. places into jail. Even going as far as researching different countries and how they were able to lower their incarceration rates. Gottschalk touches upon the topic of the aspects of lower crime would be by directing the focus on poverty, unemployment, school systems or even other social focuses such as race. There is still a sense of urgency to lower incarceration rates but Gottschalk seems doubtful about it since it is so embedded into U.S. society.
The article was a great overview recap of the incarceration state especially with how my former classes last year barely touched upon the effects it has to be incarcerated. It also gave a great overview of the ideas of a new policy and how other policies are being enacted to frame the carceral state better. However, like the other article, I found myself stopping to go back to either grasp the concept better or to look up words that I was unsure about. Not sure if I missed it but also the topic of capital punishment being noted in the construction on the carceral state.
· If money was not the problem, would the carceral state even be considered a problem to be questioned and solved?