Mass Incarceration and Disenfranchisement of Black Men in the Land of the Free

“Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”. An old French proverb, in English it means, “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. Indeed, this proverb rings all too true for black Americans. Allow me to explain. February 3^rd, 1870. The Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is ratified, granting black men the right to vote (black women and women of all races were not granted that right for 50 more years, in 1920, but that is a different story). History is made and racism is done, right? If only. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Not something to go down without a fight, the racism of white America in the days of old pushed back hard. Violence and intimidation by white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan attempted to scare blacks away from the voting booth, and punish those who went anyway. Poll taxes and literacy tests took advantage of black American’s poverty and under-education to bar them from voting [1]. All of these could be said to be ‘explicitly implicit’ attempts of disenfranchisement, or removing someone’s right/ability to vote. That is, their intentions as a tool of disenfranchisement were clear, but since everyone was subject to them, they didn't violate any laws. So when the fall of Jim Crow laws and the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 effectively brought an end to such poll taxes and literacy tests, surely now we can rest easy knowing that black Americans have unrestricted access to the ballot box? ...Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. In all but two states, persons convicted of a felony are legally disenfranchised during the time of their incarceration and often during the term of their parole and/or probation [2]. Some states even require action by a court in order to restore the right to vote. This would not be as big of a problem, however, if there was not such a massive disparity between the incarceration rates of whites and people of color. 

[Figure 1: Incarceration rates by race in the U.S.]

(Graphic source: www.prisonpolicy.org)

As shown in figure 1, the rate at which blacks were incarcerated was nearly 6 times the rate at which whites were incarcerated in 2010. Latinos are also incarcerated at about 2.5 times the rate of whites. These rates were not always this high, by the way. At its peak in 2009, the U.S. prison population was around 1,600,000 [3]. This represents a staggering 500% increase of people in prison in just 40 years, as the prison population was around 260,000 in 1976. The US population grew by a factor of about 1.5, while the prison population grew by a factor of 6.

[Figure 2: United States Federal Prison Population Over Time]

(Graphic source: sentencingproject.org)

Putting all of this together reveals a disturbing story. Black Americans are imprisoned at a rate far higher than that of whites, the overall rate of incarceration has skyrocketed since around 1980, and nearly every single person in prison or on parole is unable to vote in any election. This might not disturb you until you learn that 50% of men and 59% of women in federal prison are doing time for drug offenses, and only 7% of federal prison inmates are violent offenders [3]. This is really the crux of why mass incarceration is such an important problem. The effect, regardless of intention, is mass disenfranchisement, disproportionately against blacks. As civil rights lawyer and legal scholar Michelle Alexander puts it, "...mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow and ... all those who care about social justice should fully commit themselves to dismantling this new racial caste system [4]."

It's not difficult to see that this problem is, on the surface, a result of changes in public policy. "Tough-on-crime" policies around the 1980's found lots of support from politicians and the general public as a whole. The beginning of the War on Drugs brought about many changes to the criminal justice system which naturally lead to higher incarceration rates and longer sentences. For instance, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 [5] introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. This took away judges' ability to determine appropriate sentences for individual situations and instead made harsh sentences mandatory for even non-violent drug charges. The same act also explicitly created a disparity between sentencing for possession of crack cocaine vs possession of powder cocaine. The act set forth a minimum sentence of 5 years without parole for possession of just 5 grams of crack cocaine, while the same sentence was applied for 500 grams of powder cocaine, the same drug. As one might imagine, crack cocaine was much more popular than powder cocaine among poor black drug users [6]. Moreover, in the 1990's, many states introduced habitual offender laws, often called three-strikes laws [7]. These laws mandated life sentences for persons convicted of a felony who have had two or more convictions in the past (California's law allowed for misdemeanors to count as a strike, whereas other states only allowed for felonies to count). This led to felons receiving life sentences for non-violent crimes, and did not result in lower rates of violent crime. 

While the increase in incarceration and racial disparity of incarceration can easily be traced to policy changes, there is also an undeniable sociological aspect. One could look at the use of private, for-profit prisons, for instance, through various sociological perspectives, such as conflict theory, which looks at issues in terms of power and conflict dynamics, including class struggles.

As the prison population started growing in the 1980, demand for prison space grew as well. Private companies saw this as an opportunity and stepped in, contracting with the government to completely manage and operate private prisons for a profit. Suddenly, there was a profit incentive for private companies who were contracted by the government to incarcerate more individuals. A conflict theorist would see this as a classic struggle between the rich and the poor, the capitalists vs the proletariat. Now that such an incentive for imprisonment existed, private lobbyists could lobby against criminal justice reform and lobby for tougher laws, creating a vicious cycle. The Justice Department announced in August of 2016 that it will end the use of private prisons, however, at the time of writing this, state prisons, jails, and territorial prisons may still be privatized [8].

 Furthermore, we can look at why blacks are incarcerated at higher rates compared to whites. This is a complicated subject in its own right, but it is a direct result of a history of enslavement and codified discrimination. For the majority of the history of The United States, black Americans were either slaves or second class citizens. When, in the 1960's, they received technical legal equality, the effects of generations of racism and discrimination would continue to be felt until this very day. Generational wealth is one of the most important factors in determining socioeconomic status, and they had none. Rarely would they be hired for a good paying job so they could start to save up wealth to eventually pass down. Housing options were limited to wherever someone would sell/rent to a black person, which was usually in poor neighborhoods surrounded by even more poor black families. As sociologist Peter Kaufman [9] put it:

The correlation (some would even argue this is a causation) between poverty, race, and crime illustrates the importance of viewing the world from a sociological perspective. Poverty is not a single variable. With poverty comes lots of other poor things: poor neighborhoods (that often lack safe public spaces), poor schools (that often have high teacher turnover, outdated books, insufficient computers, and the subsequent high dropout rates), poor health and nutrition (asthma, diabetes, obesity are common ailments among the urban poor), and poor job opportunities (deindustrialization has made many of these neighborhoods into economic ghost towns).

Any attempt to understand the inequality in crime rates, and in turn in incarceration rates, between different races must recognize the greater socioeconomic context of the average black man's life vs. that of the average white man. When one spends their entire life in poverty, with bad schools that can not adequately prepare students for college or the workplace, of course many of them will feel trapped by their own situation and turn to crime out of desperation or apathy. We cannot simply assume that since blacks tend to have higher crime rates, they are inherently more prone to criminality. We have to take responsibility for the society in which we live and how it shapes each of us differently depending on our unique situation. Only then can we begin to address these inequalities effectively and work toward a more equal and fair world for everyone.

So then, how can our society work toward eliminating the disparity of incarceration, reducing mass incarceration, and ultimately reduce the disenfranchisement of people of color? Just like with any complex social issue, there is not one simple solution. It takes a myriad of changes working together to actually make a difference. There are some clear starting points, however, that would put us on the right track. In no particular order, I propose the following actions. Restore voting rights to disenfranchised felons who have completed their prison terms. People on probation and parole are contributing members of society, and as such, should be given a voice in our democracy. Eliminate for-profit prisons and the profit incentive of incarceration. A fundamental part of a capitalist society is the desire for a business to maximize profits. It should be no surprise, then, that if you allow people to profit from prisoners, they now have an incentive to incarcerate as many people as possible, even under completely unfair circumstances. Next, end the War on Drugs by eliminating all mandatory minimum sentences, all three-strikes laws, and by, over time, effectively decriminalizing all drugs and treating drug use as a public health issue, not a criminal issue. The war on drugs has been one of the single largest contributors to both the exorbitant incarceration rate in the U.S. and the racial disparity of incarceration. Drug addicts need help, not prison time. Last but not least, dedicate more resources to invest in better schools in poor areas and better programs to help and encourage those with criminal records to become productive members of society instead of effectively shunning them from society causing recidivism. By focusing on these areas, we could begin to improve poor communities while at the same time breaking down the institutionalized racism that sadly still plagues this country in the form of mass incarceration and disenfranchisement. Then, and only then, will we really be the land of the free.

References

[1] University of Michigan. n.d. "Race, Voting Rights, and Segregation", Retrieved Dec. 11, 2016.             (http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm)

[2] National Conference of State Legislatures. 2016. "Felon Voting Rights", Retrieved Dec. 11, 2016.       (http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx)

[3] The Sentencing Project. 2015. "Fact Sheet: Trends in U.S. Corrections", Retrieved Dec 12, 2016.         (http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf)

[4] Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.       New York City: The New Press.

[5] Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Public Law 99-570, 100 U.S. Statutes at Large 3207 (1986).

[6] American Civil Liberties Union. n.d. "Fair Sentencing Act", Retrieved Dec 12, 2016.                           (https://www.aclu.org/feature/fair-sentencing-act)

[7] Marvell, T., & Moody, C. (2001). The Lethal Effects of Three‐Strikes Laws. The Journal of Legal       Studies, 30(1), 89-106. doi:10.1086/468112

[8] Time. 2016. "Justice Department Will Stop the Use of Private Prisons." Retrieved Dec. 12, 2016.         (http://time.com/4457597/private-prisons-justice-department/)

[9] Kaufman, Peter. 2011. "A Sociologist Goes to Prison", Retreived Dec. 11 2016.                                     (http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/07/a-sociologist-goes-to-prison.html)

Social Movements of the 70s - Second Wave Feminism

When my parents were my age, it was truly a time of civic engagement. Many issues found themselves in the spotlight for American youth. The Vietnam War, black rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc.-- all of these got many young people and older people alike fired up and working toward making positive change in the 60's and 70's. One of the most successful at the time, though, was the women's rights and liberation movement. This period of feminist activism has been given the name of Second Wave Feminism, the successor to First Wave Feminism. Whereas First Wave Feminism focused on issues such as suffrage and simple equality under the law, Second Wave Feminism was concerned with reproductive rights (such as contraceptive access and abortion rights), sexuality, sexism in the workplace, and domestic violence, to give you an idea. Most scholars seem to agree that the ultimate goal of the movement was the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

The movement came at a very opportune time. The Civil Rights Movement and the growing Anti-War sentiment made protesting a very effective strategy of being heard, and also unified activists who fought for a particular cause to begin fighting for and helping out other causes of the time. But they also fought very hard within the legal and political system for change. Women's groups and coalitions, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), rallied women and took the fight to congress, lobbying for the changes they wanted to see take place. The movement was very successful in a very short amount of time. While the ERA was never ratified, a whole bunch of feminist changes took place that propelled second wave feminism to the mainstream. Some of theses changes were legal in nature, among them the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, making abortion a woman's legal right, Title IX, which guaranteed equality in education, and much more. Other changes simply took place in the minds of your ordinary American. Women began to be accepted as a normal and even necessary part of any workplace, even in fields typically dominated by men. The traditional idea of the "nuclear family" and fairly rigid gender roles was relegated to the backseat. Women could feel free to pursue their own educations and careers. In general the movement's goal was for women's liberation in all walks of life.

The movement was successful for a number of reasons. The post WWII economic boom meant that women were entering the workforce at very high rates. Their presence in the workplace then helped to normalize the idea of a working woman to those who otherwise might have clung on to their traditional idea of a woman as a homemaker. Moreover, the development of a simple oral contraceptive pill is credited with launching women's liberation forward. Women could spend time getting an education and moving forward in their careers without the worry of becoming pregnant and having to take lots of time off or quitting what they were doing. The pill also catalyzed sexual liberation, as one can imagine. Just as men had been doing forever, women could now be sexually active if they wanted to, without many consequences. Another reason the movement was successful is its focus on the issues of domestic violence and rape, including marital rape. These are issues that many women had experienced and continue to experience, so the inclusion of these issues and the support for things like rape crisis hotlines, battered women's shelters, and women's health clinics garnered a lot of support from women of all walks of life.

Although the ERA has still never been fully ratified, the time of second wave feminism is no longer upon us. We can learn a lot, however, from the movement, its successes, and its failures. For instance, one big takeaway is that the timing and greater sociopolitical context of a movement has as much to do with its success as the actual organization and work of the movement, it seems. Had there not been the need for women to enter the workforce, for example, the shift toward equality in the workplace would never have happened so quickly, as the resistance from men and the stigma would have lived on. Some could argue that if the pill and reliable, easy contraceptives had never been developed, women's liberation would have been on a much slower trajectory. On the other hand, this movement teaches us that unifying people, across lines of race, nationality, class, even gender, is vital for accumulating support and working toward positive change. And in today's society of both great division and great inequality, this is perhaps the most important thing for us to realize.

https://www.pacificu.edu/about-us/news-events/four-waves-feminism
https://tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/living/the-seventies-feminism-womens-lib/
http://people.howstuffworks.com/feminism4.htm

Activity Posting 4 - Gender Norms

Gender norms and gender roles are perhaps the most pervasive form of socialization present in our society today. We have very set in stone ideas about what a woman should do/wear/say/etc. and what a man should. These ideas are so concrete in most of our heads that it makes many of us uncomfortable when someone breaks them. At the same time, very few of us could explain why it makes us uncomfortable or could tell you why such gender norms are the way they are. Why is it a norm for women and girls to hold their books by their chest, while men and boys are expected to hold them at their side? Perhaps there exists some physiological reason for this, but most likely it is in fact simply a socially constructed norm that has no 'real' function beyond reinforcing the gender binary. How these gender norms are enforced and socialized into us through social pressure is something that is impossible to understand without going out and experiencing what it is like and how you are treated when you deliberately break such norms, so our group did just that.

We decided to go to the gym up at the SDC, and the two other male members of the group, Grant and Stevie, wore bras that were visible underneath a cut off shirt. Obviously, it is not typical for men to wear bras and it is very typical and in fact, often expected of women to wear bras. Bras have a utilitarian function that does not necessarily have to do with gender, though physiological differences between males and females make it something that is much more useful in general to women.

What happened when they broke this gender norm was basically discomfort all around. The attendant who scanned us in clearly found what they were doing funny, and the two of them got tons of stares and weird looks from the other people in the gym. Someone who Grant actually knows came up and asked him about it. Grant responded with asking him why it was so wrong and weird, which stumped him. We just know that it is. The boys were clearly uncomfortable with the attention they were receiving, me and our other group member were uncomfortable just watching them, and the people in the gym were very much uncomfortable with the two men wearing bras.

This social force of gender norms, perpetuated and enforced by every one of us, has huge implications for the world. We like to think we have free will and are in control of our lives. We tell our kids that they can be whatever and whoever they want to be when they grow up. And surely nothing is absolutely stopping them, however, should we ever decide that what we want goes outside gender norms (and kids who haven't been fully socialized yet often do want to do that), we would have to put up with a lot of scorn and discomfort. So, most of us simply give up and internalize these norms, we worry about constantly fitting in with them, and indeed we contribute to the socialization of others into these very norms by giving them weird looks, staring, pointing it out, etc. whenever someone does something outside their gender norms, something we find 'weird'.

Gender roles and norms can be understood in many ways. One of the ways, something called the functionalist perspective, would look at norms in a way that focuses on their overall function in society, and which institutions it supports/support it. Perhaps, one might say that gender norms support the continuation of the institution of marriage, which supports continued birth of children, ensuring a constant supply of workers for labor.

Activity Posting 2- Critique a Children's Book

The children’s book I chose to critique is called “Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus!” by Mo Willems, which was published in 2003. This book socializes children into taking responsibility seriously, as well as respecting and obeying adult authority figures by having an adult in the book request that the readers do something for him, and the rest of the book is the “reader” following those orders, even against tough opposition. The book starts even before we get to the page with the copyright information with a full spread giving the initial request from the adult which also seamlessly blends with the book title on the right side of the spread. We are shown a picture of an adult dressed up as a bus driver, with a text box saying, “Hi! I’m the bus driver. Listen, I’ve got to leave for a little while, so can you watch things for me until I get back? Thanks. Oh, and remember: Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus!” The book is written in such a way to make the reader feel involved in the story, even though they have no control over it, as is shown when the pigeon shows up. In fact, much of the remainder of the book is page after page of the pigeon making typical arguments that a child might hear from another child who is trying to convince them to break the rules or go against the wishes of an authority figure. This starts off by simply asking, then by begging, by assuring that he’ll be careful, by trying to compromise, by trying to make the reader feel bad for him, by bribing the reader, and even by exploding with rage. These are all arguments that are very realistic to hear, especially among young children, considering they aren’t of much substance. By not giving the reader any choice but to keep resisting against the advances of the pigeon, the reader gets to the end of the book having taken their responsibility seriously and having obeyed the wishes of the bus driver. It shows the reader that doing this is not very hard, that it is the proper thing to do, and that it can even be rewarding. The ‘reward’ comes when the driver returns and gives the reader a kind thank you. I suppose it could also be argued that the very end, wherein the bus driver drives away and the pigeon sees a semi-truck and dreams of driving it might be a more of a subliminal reward for having stuck it out so long, due to the imagery that would be very funny to child aged 2-6, the recommended ages for this book. Moreover, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention another very obvious socialization theme present in this book, and that is socializing the capacity to say no and stick to it. The back cover of the book even says, “Finally, a book you can say “no” to!” Kids all the way up to adolescents and even beyond tend to be subjected to a lot of peer pressure. It’s important that children know how to say no, as simple as it might sound, and that they know that doing so is ok, socially acceptable, and often expected of them. The book presents the reader with tons of arguments typical in these scenarios and we cannot give in to them. The long term purpose of this book is to help children develop socially into understanding the burden of responsibility and teach them what is expected of them when an adult or someone else requests something of them, as well as what is expected of them when some ne’er-do-well tries to pressure them into doing something they should not be doing. 

Teen Pregnancy, Race, and How it all Comes Back to Contraceptives

There is a huge discrepancy between different races when it comes to teen births. According to 2014 data from Kids Count Data Center, the number of births per 1000 females aged 15-19 is 17 for non-Hispanic Whites, 35 for Blacks, and 38 for Hispanics/Latinos. The rate for both Blacks and Latinos is more than double that of whites (although you’d never guess that looking at the racial makeup of ‘teen pregnancy’ shows, but that’s a topic for another day).

Reasons for this trend are cultural/religious, financial, due to education, and maybe even geographical. For instance, Latinos have the highest overall teen birth rate, and Catholicism is very common amongst them. The Catholic Church is very against any form of contraceptive, let alone abortion. For that reason alone, I would expect any group with a large catholic population to have higher birth rates at any ages. Moreover, Latin culture is known to put a lot of importance on the family. Perhaps Latino teens are more likely to be pressured by parents, grandparents, etc. to start their own families. Another reason why minority ethnic groups/races have higher teen birth rates is because they might have more trouble being able to afford birth control or abortion. It’s no secret that for the better part of this country’s existence, it was a country ruled by and for white people. Between slavery, the Jim Crow era, and just a period of widespread white supremacy, white people have always had an advantage here. The effects of this are still very much visible today, and I don’t have the time nor energy to write out all of the specifics, but put simply, white people are much more likely to be economically advantaged than other races. This in turn means that, in general, schools in primarily black areas or primarily Latino areas probably aren’t funded anywhere close to as much as schools in primarily white areas, and as such might not have the funds for a quality sex education class. Lastly, geography likely plays a role. The proportion of black people is much higher in the Deep South (and the proportion of Latinos is very high in Texas as well), which is known to be very religious and socially conservative. Because of this, schools often aren’t even allowed to teach students about contraceptives and how to use them, instead just telling kids to be abstinent. Furthermore, abortion is VERY taboo. This culminates in high teen birth rates across the board.

This is important because it can help us figure out how to better solve the problem of teen pregnancy. By identifying the causes of teen pregnancy, especially the unique contributors for each ethnic group, we can develop better methods to lower the teen pregnancy rate across the board.

In reality, the specific causes of high teen pregnancy rates are very complex and probably different depending on the state, whether the teen lives in a rural or urban area, and more. If you look at the data on a state-by-state basis, you find that California has rates as follow: White-9, Black-24, and Latino-31. It is almost exactly the same for New York. Both of these states have huge urban centers and large Latino populations. Michigan, on the other hand, has these rates: White-16, Black-42, and Latino-32. Comparatively, Michigan is much more rural and with much smaller urban areas. This suggests that, although the issue follows a general trend, it is also highly localized.

Data retrieved from datacenter.kidscount.org