Madison Salazar
POLS 1100 – GOLD
SUMMARY CRITIC PAPER
This summary will be based on a brief part of Jeffery Reiman’s book “The Rich Get
Richer and the Poor Get Prison, Ideology Class and Criminal Justice Fifth Edition. Reiman’s
thesis from this excerpt is that crime control cannot be targeted on just one aspect, but that crime
reduction as a whole should be the goal for American society. Reiman lists four main excuses to
support this thesis, which we have the tools and knowledge to minimize and reduce crime. He
also uses the Pyrrhic defeat theory which argues that the criminal justice system only helps to
fight a portion of the crime, enough only to keep it from getting out of hand. The first excuse
America uses is that “We’re too soft” says Reiman. Although in recent evidence shows an
increase in harsher punishments, it has done little to help decrease crime. His next excuse used is
that crime is “The cost of modern life.” In other words, because our country is growing,
becoming more modernized and industrialized we can only expect more crime. Then his next
excuse of why there is crime, “Blame it on the kids.” Because they are young and out of control,
they are the cause of crime. Reiman believes age does play a factor in high crime rates, but is a
reason to target that age group and help to find ways to reduce the crimes they are commiting.
And lastly he says, “We just don’t know what to do” when it comes to getting high crime
numbers lowered. There is so much crime and it’s so overwhelming, what can we do? We
cannot give up, believes Reiman because if we do, crime will just keep increasing, and becoming
a bigger problem than before. If we don’t take control there is nothing we can do to stop it,
crime control will never get better.
Reiman believes we can reduce crime if we wanted to. To support this theory is his first
excuse, “We’re too soft!” In polls taken, the people do believe we are too soft on crime; we need
to toughen up on crime if we want to reduce it. But studies also show we are becoming more
strict and harsh on crime than we were previously. It hasn’t made any big impact on decreasing
crime rates though. In fact for every 600 prisoners and jailed, there are 100,000 people in the
nation, says Reiman. America now holds the highest rate of incarcerated citizens, compared to
the Soviet Union and the Union of South Africa, says Reiman. It shows that jailing criminals is
not the answer to reducing crimes. Even when a bill was passed by the U.S. Senate to increase
the police force, there hasn’t been a difference showing that crime is decreased. Reiman thinks
we should not excuse being soft on crimes, but take being ranked as number one in the world
who has the highest crime rates as a wakeup call.
America is too soft on crimes, says Reiman. A strong example is probation, “3 out of
every 100 Americans were incarcerated or on probation or parole in 1995.” We have so many
people out on probation either because we see their crime committed as a smaller crime
compared to others or because there is no room in jail/prison to hold them. This plays a part in
repeating the cycle of crimes being committed because the punishment isn’t very restricting,
and/or harsh in relation to what they did, and do not have to be sustained to jail/prison
conditions. Which also helps to support the Pyrrhic theory, because we the American society,
are maintaining and creating the rates crimes are being committed. There is not enough reason to
not commit because as Reiman sees it, America chooses to be too soft on crime. If there is a way
to find a balance between a reasonable consequence and enforcing that fear of committing a
crime, it might help to decrease our high rates.
He then explains excuse two on the Americans belief of why crime is so high: “A cost of
modern life.” It is believed that because we are becoming more industrialized, modernized, and
there is more and more people each day in this country, crime rising is just going to be a result of
that. The majority of Americans view and believe we can’t expect to stop or decrease crime at
the rate the country is growing. So do we give up? No, says Reiman. He uses the example of
being taxed. Of course we hate taxes, and they grow to cost more and more as time goes by, but
do we give up on wanting them lowered because that is inevitable? No, everyone loves tax
breaks, and tax cuts. Reiman believes, why should this be any different? Also in comparison to
Japan, another one of the highest rated countries for crime, there rates are lower than ours, and
not increasing at such a fast pace as America’s is. And being one of the highly populous places,
their crimes rates are very low compared to America. Which goes to show, a bigger population
does mean more crime, Reiman agrees, but it still can be controlled as in the example of Japan.
Another example is New York (8, 600, 00 population) to Missouri (98,841 population) both have
close to the same crime rates. New York’s crime rates range at 5,670 whereas Missouri has
5,669, taken in a poll according to Reiman. Although crime in America is decreasing, it isn’t
decreasing at a steady rate, or at the rate it should be. If we put forth more effort and try a
different plan or approach, it may become more attainable to a faster reduction in crime.
Reiman’s third excuse American’s use is that the youth is to blame for high crime rates.
In support of this excuse, studies do show more vicious crimes, such as murders have higher
numbers in ages ranging from 14-24 years old but there is a reason for this. According to
Reiman, the transition from teen to adult causes all kinds of chaos especially in young males.
They are introduced to this new part of life and have a hard time transitioning over. Here is one
of the reasons why young people, mostly males, are more venerable to commit crimes. Among
other reasons like poverty, drugs, and the lack economical living needs. Crime also decreases
when that age groups population decreases. Reiman uses many statistics showing that as the
population in a certain age decreases, so does the crime rate. So it is not so much that more
youth are deciding to commit crimes now, but that there are more youth in the population that
has added to the increase of crime. Also worth taking into consideration is that there are agespecific crimes. (Some that is more often committed at a certain age) This supports Reiman’s
argument that we cannot blame the youth, because that would be putting it to broadly, that there
are many elements that make up why we see more crimes in youth. If we take each element and
find a solution or something that will help decrease the outcome of a crime being committed, it
can help us to gain the speed we need to reduce crime.
“We just don’t know what to do” about crime control, is Reiman’s fourth excuse.
Although we had an increase in prisons, and longer sentencing since Reagan’s office (1981–
1989), it did little to nothing in the reduction of crime. This supports Reiman’s theory that we
need to relook at our criminal justice system. Look at what implications we can make such as
better education on crime control, long-term solutions to reduce crime, and getting more support
to target sources of crime. If we better understand what are the sources of crimes being
committed like: youth in poverty, gun control, and drugs, and not try to just control them or
contain them, we will have a better chance at reducing them. He also points out that many
experts in crime agree that we don’t understand how to go about reducing crime but keep using
the same tactics that fail over and over. For example, the increase in police and prisons did not
help in any major reduction in crime. Also the evidence of changing treatment programs in
prison was shown to be a failure. Changing tactics like this would help to better grasp why a
crime is being committed in poverty places, or due to gun accessibility for example, and how
American government can target those sources to help prevent crime and decrease it.
In support of Reiman, the more educated and informed about crime control we can make
people aware of, the better decisions and outcomes we will get in America’s crime ratings. For
example, Todd Clear, professor of criminal justice at Rutgers University, suggests “Good
schools, jobs, and a future for young parents and their children.” Because we see poverty and
unemployment as a source of crime why not improve those conditions to help make a bad
situation better. (Then in turn possibly help reduce crime) And that goes along with Reiman’s
fourth excuse of “We don’t know what to do.” Because we have known sources of crime and
are not taking the action to better those situations to later help reduce crime. Reiman believes
that increase in labor power, such as increasing the police force and adding more prisons is not
the answer. Using the same approach and failing each time is not going to work. We need new
policies and new ways to tackle crime then we have before. Why maintain the same criminal
justice system, that has proven not effective each time with little changes, and instead try
something totally new and different. If we fail at enforcing that new policy, than we have room
to adjust and fix the errors to come up with better policy. The only way to reduce crime is to
educate ourselves on how and why it is being committed and target those crimes effecting not
just youth but everyone the most.
Jeffery Reiman’s “The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, Ideology Class and
Criminal Justice Fifth Edition,” was a good read. It hit many good points, such as focusing
beyond maintaining crimes but trying to focus solely on why the crime is being committed, by
who, and what can we do to prevent it. It is very important for everyone to become more
educated and aware about crime control. If more citizens get involved, our needs and views will
be met and represented. If we stand aside and use excuses as reasons why there is crime, there is
not going to be a sufficient way to reduce it.