The United States Justice System:
Cycle of Poverty and Crime through Mass Incarceration
Emily Patterson
PVS-101, Drs. Gandolfo and Shelley
Spring 2009
Patterson 1
Cycle of Poverty and Crime through Mass Incarceration
“…unjust social arrangements are themselves a kind of extortion, even violence…”
- John Rawls
The United States incarceration rate has skyrocketed in the past three decades.
Currently, more than one fourth of the adult population in America has criminal records.
One in every twenty African American males over the age of eighteen is in a state or federal
prison, compared to one in every one hundred and eighty whites.1 Prison is viewed as a
punishment and very rarely as a reformative means to reintegrate individuals back into
society upon release. Instead, once convicted of a felony, former inmates suffer an
“invisible punishment” for the rest of their lives after release from prison. The US justice
system in such practices as its sentencing and law enforcement policies disproportionately
target low-income and minority neighborhoods and urban areas. In our democratic
country, it is crucial as responsible and knowledgeable citizens to address these injustices
that the less fortunate suffer.
The United States has about six percent of the world’s population, but it has about
twenty-five percent of the world’s incarcerated population.2 Why does our society deem it
necessary to place so many behind bars? Many cite a great concern with safety. If this is
the true concern, incarceration does not seem to be the answer because currently
Jamie Fellner and Sinead Walsh, “United States Punishment and Prejudice: Racial
Disparities in the War on Drugs,” ed. By Kenneth Roth and Malcolm Smart, Human Rights
Watch, (May 2000), http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/.
2 Marc Mauer, “Comparative International Rates of Incarceration: An Examination of
Causes and Trends Presented to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,” The Sentencing
Project, (June 20, 2003),
http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_comparative_intl.
pdf.
1
Patterson 2
American citizens are not the safest in the world. The US homicide rate is approximately
four times the rate of most nations in Western Europe.3 Much of this increase in
incarceration populations come from the homeless, the addicts, and those with mental
disabilities rather than the violent who are a threat to the safety of our society.
Since 1970, the number of prisoners has grown by over six hundred percent to
almost one and half million incarcerated people. Although the year 2007 experienced a
slower growth rate in the prison population than from 2000 to 2006, the incarcerated
population grew more quickly than the general population.4 The economic costs of the
increase have overwhelmed all aspects of the judicial system. Federal prisons are now
operating thirty percent over full capacity.5 According to the US Department of Justice, the
average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was $22,650,6 which compares
rather pathetically to US annual expenditures per primary student ($8,305) or secondary
student ($9,590) in 2006.7 Most scholars will agree that although public defenders are
equally well qualified as private attorneys, their caseloads are simply too much to provide
similar quality of representation. As Stephen Henry, a local lawyer who has served on a
public defenders board, states, “The only downside to court appointed representation is
Ibid.
James J. Stephan, “State Prison Expenditures, 2001,” US Department of Justice: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, (June 2004), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf.
5 Lexington, “A Nation of Jailbirds: Far too many Americans are behind bars,” The
Economist, April 2, 2009.
6 Barbara Ischinger, “Education at a Glance 2006: Briefing Note: United States,”
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (September 12, 2006),
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf.
7 Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, “Prisoners in 2007,” US Department of Justice:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, (December 2008),
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/20/37392850.pdf.
3
4
Patterson 3
whether they have the time to spend on that case.”8 Justice Hugo Black wrote in Griffin v.
Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) that “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man
gets depends on the amount of money he has” and since this Supreme Court decision all
defendants charged with felony convictions must be provided with representation by the
State if the defendant is unable to provide for one himself. Due to the great costs of
providing the representation, often limited public attorneys have an overwhelming
caseload that is not conducive to adequate representation.
The costs of incarceration are not only incurred by the state and inmate. The
families of inmates suffer greatly, such as through lost income and help with childcare as
well as worries for the loved ones in prison.9 The majority of inmates (fifty-five percent in
State prisons and sixty-three percent in Federal prisons) reported having a minor child
under the age of eighteen and forty-six percent of parents reported living with their
children prior to incarceration. Over half of the incarcerated parents were black compared
to about a quarter that was white. Most parents (forty percent of fathers and sixty percent
of mothers) had at least weekly contact with their children. The difficulty in maintaining
this contact lies within the great distance that most prisons are from the inmates’ home
communities (sixty-two percent of State and eighty-four percent of Federal prisoners are
held more than a hundred miles from their last household). One of the worst problems for
Stephen Henry, personal interview with author, Greenville, April 17, 2009.
Donald Braman, “Families and Incarceration,” in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral
Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, ed. Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind, (New York:
The New Press, 2002), 117-135.
8
9
Patterson 4
families is that America’s almost two million “prison orphans” are six times more likely
than their peers to spend time in prison themselves.10
Mr. Stephen Henry, director of the non-profit Law-in-Action that addresses many of
the shortcomings in the justice system of Greenville county, attributes the drastic increase
in incarceration rates to mandatory sentencing practices for drug offenses,
“The legislators run on these platforms of getting tough, like Nixon successfully did
on a national scale. Then they have to produce and they have to pass more and
more mandatory sentencing laws… Mandatory sentences are an allusion presented
by representatives to their constituents to make them feel better about the war on
drugs. It has very little impact. Then they increase jury trials since you are going to
get a mandatory sentence anyways… [Additionally], it greatly hurts whatever
chances the jail has to control the inmate because the sentencing is not affected by
conduct as an inmate.”11
Stances on mandatory sentencing have slightly softened recently.12 Many states have
removed these impractical laws and many more are beginning to take similar actions. Most
recently, New York has repealed the strict mandatory minimum prison sentences that were
implemented in the 1970’s for lower-level drug felons in order to provide judges with more
discretion and encouragement to send first-time offenders to a treatment program instead
of prison.13
Inside the prisons, many injustices are displayed in color. African Americans are
disproportionately arrested, convicted, and sentenced for drug possession and use than
whites. African Americans compose thirty-five percent of those arrested for drug crimes
and an overwhelming fifty-three percent of those convicted with drug offenses. Research
on the current “War on Drugs” that has driven this increase in prison populations has
Lexington, “A Nation of Jailbirds.”
Stephen Henry, personal interview.
12 Lexington, “A Nation of Jailbirds.”
13 Jeremy W. Peters, “Albany Reaches Deal to Repeal ‘70s Drug Laws,” New York Times,
March 25, 2009, front page and N.Y./region section.
10
11
Patterson 5
shown that African Americans are not the nation’s average drug user. In fact, they compose
approximately thirteen percent of the nation’s monthly drug users.14
These unjust figures arise from the current drug policies with a law enforcement
approach in low-income and colored communities and a treatment orientation in white and
suburban neighborhoods. In state prisons, four out of every five drug offenders are either
black or Latino.15 Less than a third of prisoners have completed high school and less than
half of them had an annual income of $10,000 in the year prior to incarceration. In the
southern states, these figures are even worse.16
While serving time in prison, most inmates receive little to no help for their
addictions that landed them behind bars. As Lawrence Y., a prisoner at Southport
Correctional Facility, stated, “I’ve been in the box since 2004 on one drug ticket after
another. I’m going to max out my sentence in here. I’ll go home with the same habit I came
in with.” Simply excluding people from society will not end the drug problem in our
country. The New York State Assemblyman Jeff Aubry, chair of the Committee on
Corrections, summarizes the problem in his statement,
“Most inmates will eventually return to our communities and we must ensure strong
and effective treatment programs during incarceration in order to increase the
likelihood of their success upon release. Denying treatment to inmates who suffer
from a drug dependence is illogical and counterproductive to the goal of
rehabilitation.”17
Patrick Vinck, PhD, and Jamie Fellner, “Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and
Race in the United States,” Human Rights Watch and Berkeley-Tulane Initiative on
Vulnerable Populations, (May 4, 2008),
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0508/us0508webwcover.pdf.
15 Marc Mauer, “Mass Imprisonment and the Disappearing Voters,” in Invisible Punishment:
The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, ed. Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind,
(New York: The New Press, 2002), 117-135.
16 Vinck and Fellner, “Targeting Blacks.”
17 Human Rights Watch Staff, “New York: Stop Sending Prison Drug Users to ‘the Box”:
Years in Disciplinary Segregation Constitutes Cruel, Degrading Treatment and Fails to
14
Patterson 6
Approximately half of the prison population suffers from drug abuse or dependence, but
less than twenty percent of those receive formal treatment for their addiction.18 One study
of the Delaware State prison system found that prisoners in a treatment plan and continued
their treatment in a work-release program were seventy percent less likely to return to
drugs and be rearrested than their nonparticipant counterparts.19
The years in prison that ensure offenders pay for their crimes and physically
separate prisoners from society are evident to everyone, but the most damaging forms of
social exclusion, the “invisible punishments,” occur upon the prisoner’s release into society.
At least ninety-five percent of those in State prisons will be released from prison at some
point.20 Ex-felons are ineligible for public benefits, such as welfare and public housing. The
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) of 1996 legalized the
ideological shift of citizenship from civic virtues to social contract in which the
undeserving, including ex-felons, were now excluded from society’s benefits.21 Part of the
1996 welfare reform included a lifetime ban on eligibility for TANF assistance and food
Provide Needed Care,” Human Rights Watch, (March 24, 2009),
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/24/new-york-stop-sending-prison-drug-usersbox.
18 Editorial board of the New York Times, “Addiction Behind Bars,” Human Rights Watch,
(April 15, 2009), http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/15/addiction-behind-bars.
19 National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research
Based Guide, Frequently Asked Questions,” National Institutes of Health, (October 1999),
http://www.nida.nih.gov/podat/faqs2.html.
20 Leah Kane, “The Second Chance Act, 2008 Information Packet,” Council of State
Governments: Justice Center, (2008),
http://www.occaonline.org/pdf/news/Second_Chance_Act_Packet_10.21.08%5B1%5D.pdf
.
21 Jeremy Travis, “Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion,” in Invisible
Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, ed. Marc Mauer and Meda
Chesney-Lind, (New York: The New Press, 2002) 31.
Patterson 7
stamps for ex-felons convicted of drug use, possession, and distribution and a ten-year ban
to individuals convicted of welfare fraud. States have the choice to opt out of this ban, but
only eight have chosen to do so and another twenty have chosen to enforce the ban but to
also exempt those who enter treatment after prison.22 Unlike the welfare laws that
specifically targeted drug offenders, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 placed a ban on
eligibility for public housing that extends to all previous felons. These restrictions were
emphasized and made stricter in the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996,
the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, and the 1996 law that founded
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) “one strike and you’re
out” Initiative intended to emphasize the public housing’s stance on those with prior felony
convictions. The good intention to create a safe environment within public housing has
created more difficulties for ex-felons returning to the community, punished not only the
ex-felon but also the entire family (and thus has made reunification after a parent is
released from prison much more improbable), and has overwhelmed caseloads in shelters.
The removal of these safety nets hinder ex-felons from truly being able to
reintegrate into society, which often leads them to act in further crimes and increases the
rates of recidivism. Their limited mobility also hinders their ability to find a decent job that
will pay a decent wage since they are unable to receive any public assistance if they have a
job without a wage high enough on which to live.23 Unfortunately, these rates have not
been improving over time (Figure 1). 24
Gwen Rubinstein and Debbie Mukamal, 41.
Travis, “Invisible Punishment,” 18-19.
24 Hughes, Timothy and Doris James Wilson, “Reentry Trends in the United States: Inmates
returning to the community after serving time in prison.” US Department of Justice: Bureau
of Justice Statistics. August 20, 2003, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf.
22
23
Patterson 8
Furthermore, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 implemented new
termination of parental rights conditions and time limits to ensure that foster care is not a
long-term solution for a child with parents who are incapable of caring for the child.
Accordingly, the state must file for the termination of parental rights and begin the process
of searching for an adoptive family of any child that has been in the foster system for fifteen
of the past twenty-two months without contact with the child. There have been significant
consequences on parental inmates or prior felons serving as stable foster or adoptive
parents. “As a result [of the initial implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act],
children’s advocates and some government officials contend, youngsters are being
removed from otherwise stable foster homes without regard to their parents’ fitness.”25
The law has taken away all discretion that would allow ex-felons the opportunity to prove
themselves as a changed individual and a worthy parent. For parental inmates, many are
deemed incapable of raising their own children (refer to “The Case of Marie and Her Sons”
by Bergner for a case study of an African American mother26 and “After Losing Freedom,
Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their Children” by Thompson for an article on
Somini Sengupta, “Criticism for Law Barring Foster Parents With Past Felonies,” New
York Times, N.Y./region section (February 27, 2000),
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/27/nyregion/criticism-for-law-barring-fosterparents-with-pastfelonies.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Foster%20Care&scp=2&sq
=adoption%20and%20safe%20families%20act&st=cse.
26 Daniel Bergner, “The Case of Marie and Her Sons,” New York Times Magazine, (July 23,
2006),
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23welfare.html?scp=3&sq=adoption%2
0and%20safe%20families%20act&st=cse.
25
Patterson 9
the difficulties immigrants suffer in keeping their children while being held in detention
prior to deportation27).
Another instrument of alienation for ex-felons is disenfranchisement, the
ineligibility to vote. Supporters for the disenfranchisement laws believe that ex-felons
would vote for politicians and laws that would help criminals and endanger the safety of
society. In an 1884 Alabama case, the court deemed it essential to safeguard the “purity of
the ballot box” from the “invasion of corruption.” Theodore Roosevelt captured the late
nineteenth century Progressive viewpoint in his call for “‘relentless and unceasing warfare
against lawbreaking black men’ on the grounds that ‘laziness and shiftlessness… and above
all, vice and criminality of every kind, are evils more potent for harm to the black race than
all acts of oppression of white men put together.”28 In another case in New York, Judge
Friendly wrote that “It can scarcely be deemed unreasonable for a state to decide that
perpetrators of serious crimes shall not take part in electing legislators who make the laws,
the executives who enforce these, the prosecutors who must try them for further
violations, or the judges who are to consider their cases.”29
However, their experience and opinions in the judicial system would make them the
ideal candidates to encourage policy change that reflects the needs of low-income
communities. As Justice Thurgood Marshall stated in a dissenting opinion in Richardson v.
Ramirez, 418 U.S. 78, “[Ex-felons] are as much affected by the actions of government as any
other citizen, and have as much of a right to participate in governmental decision-making.
Ginger Thompson, “After Losing Freedom, Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of
Their Children,” New York Times, US section, (April 22, 2009),
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23children.html?scp=1&sq=adoptive&st=cse.
28 Manza and Uggen, Locked Out, 47
29 Mauer, “Disappearing Vote.”
27
Patterson 10
Furthermore, the denial of a right to vote to such persons is hindrance to the efforts of
society to rehabilitate former felons and convert them into law-abiding and productive
citizens.”
Currently, two percent of the general population and fourteen percent of black men
are unable to vote due to prior felony convictions.30 This act of denying many their basic
right to participate in our democratic state is detrimental to the reintegration of inmates
into our society and to their basic dignity as can be seen in the quote of a prisoner with a
felon charge for her drug dependency, Pamela,
“It’s just like a little salt in the wound. You’ve already got that wound and it’s trying
to heal and it’s trying to heal, and you’re trying to be a good taxpayer and be a
homeowner… Just one little vote, right? But that means a lot to me… It’s just loss
after loss after loss. And this is just another one. Another to add to the pile... When I
said salt in the wound, the wound’s already there. Me being able to vote isn’t going
to just whip up and heal that wound… But it’s like it’s still open enough so that you
telling me that I’m still really bad because I can’t [vote] is like making it sting again.
It’s like haven’t I paid enough yet?... You can’t really feel like a part of your
government because they’re still going like this, ‘Oh, you’re bad. Remember what
you did way back then? Nope, you can’t vote.’”31
Several states have deemed individuals with felony charges “bad” for life with the extent of
their disenfranchisement laws.
Since African Americans and low-income individuals are disproportionately
imprisoned,32 the political outcome of such disenfranchisement laws is staggering with
such a percentage of the group unable to vote. Historically, many of these laws were
adopted in the Southern states as a means to exclude minorities. Current
disenfranchisement laws trace their foundation to the post-Reconstruction era in which
Lexington, “A Nation of Jailbirds.”
Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American
Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4.
32 Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 2006), 27.
30
31
Patterson 11
states, particularly those in the South, changed their laws to exclude African Americans by
“tying the loss of voting rights to crimes alleged to be committed primarily by blacks while
excluding offenses held to be committed by whites.”33 As the author of the Alabama
provision stated in the estimate “the crime of wife-beating alone would disqualify sixty
percent of the Negroes.”34 While most other forms of blocking minorities from the ballot
box have been proven unconstitutional and terminated, this continues to hinder the power
of the minority vote to a large extent. Since the majority of inmates, blacks and poor or
working-class whites, typically vote Democratic, studies have emphasized the possibility
that without these laws, the recent close elections could have been swayed due to the many
more Democratic votes.35
Research shows that those who feel excluded from society are more likely to be
rearrested, reconvicted, and resentenced in a vicious cycle of crime that only spirals
downward. Statistics show that sadly, within three years from release, fifty-one percent of
prisoners will be back in prison.36 The “invisible punishments” of social exclusion make it
even harder for ex-felons to reintegrate and become connected to their communities.
Another contributing factor in the current rate of recidivism is the widespread
addiction in the United States prison system. Unless the reason why they have been spent
to jail is addressed, most people will return with the exact same habits. Part of a successful
Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, Locked Out, 43.
Andrew Shapiro, “Challenging criminal disenfranchisement under the Voting Rights Act:
a new strategy,” The Yale Law Journal 103, no. 2 (November 1993), 537-566. Accessed
from JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/797104.
35 Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of
Felong Disenfranchisement in the United States,” American Sociological Review 67, no. 6
(December 2002), 780 – 781, accessed from JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088970.
36 Hughes and Wilson, “Reentry Trends.”
33
34
Patterson 12
judicial system requires prisons to incorporate extensive rehabilitation programs to
address the needs of the inmates while in prison and to prevent future recidivism costs.
At what point have people paid back their debt to society? Can citizens with
previous felony convictions ever redeem themselves enough to regain custody of their own
children? How much distance between “them” and “us” does society need to ensure its
safety? As such high rates of recidivism that the US exemplifies, the distance from society
and the difficulties upon reentry into the community that ex-felons must suffer hinders
their opportunity for human flourishing and success from the moment their cell is unlocked
for their release.
Most sentences are relative to the damage on society that a crime has created. Who
decides who is more of a threat or cost to our society though? The following article, “Mine
Is Closed 26 Deaths Late” was found in the Washington Star on March 14, 1976,
“Why, the relatives [of the 26 dead miners] ask, did the mine ventilators fail and
allow pockets of volatile methane gas to build up in a shaft 2,300 feet below the
surface? Why wasn’t the mine cleared as soon as supervisors spotted evidence of
methane gas near where miners were driving huge machines into the 61-foot-high
coal seam?... Investigators of the Senate Labor and Welfare Committee… have found
that there have been 1,250 safety violations at the thirteen year old mine since
1970. Fifty-seven of those violations were serious enough for federal inspectors to
order the mine closed and twenty one of those were in cases where federal
inspectors felt there was imminent danger to the lives of the miners working there…
Federal inspectors said the most violations found at the mine were three found in
the ventilation system on Monday – the day before 15 miners were killed.”37
Immediately next to this article was another story, “Mass Murder Claims Six in
Pennsylvania,” of a shooter that killed a family and a friend in a Pennsylvania suburb.38
Why do twenty six dead miners only amount to a “disaster” but six dead suburbanites
The Washington Star Staff, “Mine is Closed 26 Deaths Late,” The Washington Star, March
14, 1976, A1 – A9, in Jeffrey H. Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company), 35.
38 Ibid., “Mass Murder Claims Six in Pennsylvania.”
37
Patterson 13
amount to a “mass murder”? Jeffrey Reiman, author of The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get
Prison, believes that “the label ‘crime’ is not used in America to name all or the worst of
actions that cause misery and suffering to Americans. It is primarily reserved for the
dangerous actions of the poor.”39
“White-collar crime,” such as bankruptcy fraud, is far more costly than all the FBI
Index Crimes combined. Yet these criminals are rarely arrested and when charged, the
sentences are often suspended and far lighter in comparison to the costs to society of their
crimes. Table 1 exemplifies the discrepancies for the different classes of crime.
The South Carolina Department of Correction’s mission is to “protect the citizens by
confining offenders in controlled facilities…”40 The problem is the word “offenders.”
Offenders of what? Offenders of our comfort when we walk down the road and see a
homeless man alone in such desperation and hard times that he is sitting on a curb with a
bottle of whiskey? Offenders of our gated community that someone trespassed into our
area across the brick wall that we built to keep the “undesirables” as far away from us as
possible? “Offenders” does not mean that the violators are more dangerous to our society
than the many employers who take no concern for the safety of their workers. Every hour
in the United States, approximately two are murdered, but four die as a result of unsafe or
unhealthy working conditions.41 If our law enforcement intends to protect its citizens from
harm, the more dangerous criminal in our society would be the employer.
Jeffrey H. Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Compay), 36.
40 South Carolina Department of Corrections, “Learn About SCDC,” State of South Carolina,
(2008), http://www.doc.sc.gov/.
41 Reiman, The Rich Get Richer, 34.
39
Patterson 14
Most supporters of prison reform are hopeful with Obama’s promise to create a
“prison-to-work incentive program” and to reform the criminal justice system. Obama has
focused on closing secret prisons in the beginning of his term as President but his
commitment and stance against our current “prisons [that] are more likely to produce
hardened criminals” continues to be strong.42 As our country recently experienced a new
record in which one in every one hundred Americans are behind bars for the first time in
our history, the legislative branch has begun to become involved in these efforts as well.
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has recently introduced the National Criminal Justice
Commission Act of 2009 (S. 714) to the Senate that calls for a national coalition to address
the country’s criminal justice policy. Currently, it is only in the first steps of the legislative
process,43 but it has garnered the public support of the Obama administration and
widespread bipartisan support in Congress, which looks promising. The difficulty is the
large “prison-industrial complex (which includes private prisons as well as public ones)
[that] employs thousands of people and armies of lobbyists.” Reform will drastically hurt
this industry, especially in the twenty-six states that have instituted “three-strikes and
you’re out” laws to imprison repeat offender for life without parole.44
The current congressional and presidential term should be enthralling to monitor in
regards to these issues within our current unjust justice system. As shown in this paper,
the evidence demands a necessary response from informed and concerned citizens. Jamie
Fellner and Sinead Wash state in a Human Rights Watch report that “putting a person
Barack Obama, “Americans for Prison Reform,” Organizing for America,
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/AmericansforPrisonReform.
43 Jim Webb, “S. 714: National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009,” Govtrack.us: A
Civic Project to Track Congress, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-714.
44 Lexington, “A Nation of Jailbirds.”
42
Patterson 15
behind bars is so common in the United States and so frequently imposed for minor
conduct that it seems the country has lost sight of just how serious a punishment
imprisonment is.”45 Furthermore, if our country is to ever become truly democratic, our
current laws and enforcement policies must be readdressed and corrected to treat
everyone equally instead of discriminating against minorities and the poor. More than ever,
now is the time to express our democratic right to express our concern for this injustice to
our President and our Congressmen.
45
Fellner and Wash, “United States Punishment and Prejudice.”
Patterson 16
Figures and Graphs
Figure 1. Rates of rearrests within three years after release from state prisons according to
offense, 1983 and 1994. 46
46
Hughes and Wilson, “Reentry Trends.”
Patterson 17
Figure 2. Rates of Prison Admissions for Drug Offenses, by Race, 2003. (Rates calculated
per 100,000 residents of each race).47
Table 1. Sentences for Different Classes of Crime48
Ave. Sentence (in mos.)
Crimes of the Poor
Robbery
Burglary
Larceny/theft
Crimes of the Affluent
Embezzlement
Fraud
Income tax evasion
47
48
Ave. Time Served Until
First Release (in mos.)
131.3
63.4
31.0
44.4
31.6
17.1
18.8
22.0
15.5
10.3
11.0
7.9
Vinck and Fellner, “Targeting Blacks.”
Jeffrey H. Reiman, 99.
Patterson 18
Works Cited
Lexington. “A Nation of Jailbirds.” The Economist. April 12, 2009.
Bergner, Daniel. “The Case of Marie and Her Sons.” New York Times Magazine. July 23,
2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23welfare.html?scp=3&sq=adop
tion%20and%20safe%20families%20act&st=cse.
Braman, Donald. “Families and Incarceration” in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral
Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind,
117-135. New York: The New Press, 2002.
Fellner, Jamie and Sinead Walsh. “United States Punishment and Prejudice: Racial
Disparities in the War on Drugs.” Edited by Kenneth Roth and Malcolm Smart,
Human Rights Watch. May 2000. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/.
Henry, Stephen. Personal interview with author. Greenville, SC. April 17, 2009.
Hughes, Timothy and Doris James Wilson, “Reentry Trends in the United States: Inmates
returning to the community after serving time in prison.” US Department of Justice:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. August 20, 2003.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf.
Human Rights Watch. “New York: Stop Sending Prison Drug Users to ‘the Box’: Years in
Disciplinary Segregation Constitutes Cruel, Degrading Treatment and Fails to
Provide Needed Care.” March 24, 2009.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/24/new-york-stop-sending-prison-drugusers-box.
Human Rights Watch. “Targeting Blacks.” May 4, 2008.
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62236/section/1.
Patterson 19
Ischinger, Barbara. “Education at a Glance 2006: Briefing Note: United States.”
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. September 12, 2006.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf.
Kane, Leah. “The Second Chance Act, 2008 Information Packet.” Council of State
Governments: Justice Center. 2008.
http://www.occaonline.org/pdf/news/Second_Chance_Act_Packet_10.21.08%5B1
%5D.pdf.
Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis. “The New Landscape of Imprisonment: Mapping
America’s Prison Expansion.” Urban Institute. April 29, 2004.
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410994.
Manza, Jeff and Christopher Uggen. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American
Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Mauer, Marc. “Comparative International Rates of Incarceration: An Examination of
Causes and Trends Presented to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.” The
Sentencing Project. June 20, 2003.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_comparati
ve_intl.pdf.
Mauer, Marc. “Mass Imprisonment and the Disappearing Voters.” In Invisible Punishment:
The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by Marc Mauer and Meda
Chesney-Lind, 50-58. New York: The New Press, 2002.
Mumola, Christopher J. “Incarcerated Parents and Their Children.” US Department of Justice:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. August 2000.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf.
Patterson 20
National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research
Based Guide, Frequently Asked Questions.” National Institutes of Health. October
1999. http://www.nida.nih.gov/podat/faqs2.html.
New York Times Editorial Staff. “Addiction Behind Bars.” Human Rights Watch. April 15,
2009. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/15/addiction-behind-bars.
Obama, Barack. “Americans for Prison Reform.” In Organizing for America.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/AmericansforPrisonReform (accessed
April 27, 2009).
Peters, Jeremy W. “Albany Reaches Deal to Repeal ‘70s Drug Laws.” New York Times, March
25, 2009, front page and N.Y./region section.
Reiman, Jeffrey H. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1984.
Sengupta, Somini. “Criticism for Law Barring Foster Parents With Past Felonies.” New York
Times, N.Y./region section. February 27, 2000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/27/nyregion/criticism-for-law-barring-fosterparents-with-pastfelonies.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Foster%20Care&scp
=2&sq=adoption%20and%20safe%20families%20act&st=cse.
Shapiro, Andrew. “Challenging criminal disenfranchisement under the Voting Rights Act: a
new strategy.” The Yale Law Journal 103, no. 2, 537-566. November 1993. Accessed
from JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/797104.
Patterson 21
South Carolina Department of Corrections. “Learn About SCDC (South Carolina
Department of Corrections).” State of South Carolina, 2008.
http://www.doc.sc.gov/.
Stephan, James J. “State Prison Expenditures, 2001.” US Department of Justice: Bureau of
Justice Statistics. June 2004. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf.
Thompson, Ginger. “After Losing Freedom, Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their
Children.” New York Times, US section. April 22, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23children.html?scp=1&sq=adoptive&s
t=cse.
Travis, Jeremy. “Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion.” In Invisible
Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by Marc
Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind, 15-36. New York: The New Press, 2002.
Uggen, Christopher and Jeff Manza. “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of
Felong Disenfranchisement in the United States.” American Sociological Review 67,
no. 6, 777 – 783. December 2002. Accessed from JSTOR.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088970.
Vinck, Patrick, PhD, and Jamie Fellner. “Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race
in the United States.” Human Rights Watch and Berkeley-Tulane Initiative on
Vulnerable Populations. May 2008.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0508/us0508webwcover.pdf
Washington Star Staff, The. “Mine is Closed 26 Deaths Late.” The Washington Star, March
14, 1976, section A, in The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison by Jeffrey H.
Reiman, 35. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984.
Patterson 22
Washington Star Staff, The. “Mass Murder Claims Six in Pennsylvania.” The Washington
Star, March 14, 1976, section A, in The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison by
Jeffrey H. Reiman, 35. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984.
Webb, Jim. “S. 714: National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009.” Govtrack.us: A
Civic Project to Track Congress.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-714 (accessed 4/29/09).
West, Heather C. and William J. Sabol. “Prisoners in 2007.” US Department of Justice:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 2008.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/20/37392850.pdf.
Western, Bruce. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 2006.