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