Christina Bell
Summary Paper
POLS 1100-017
November 16, 2010
Nothing Succeeds Like Failure
Could the goal of our criminal justice system be to fail, not succeed, in keeping
crime rates down? This question was Jeffrey Reiman’s main idea in the first chapter of
The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. This edition was written between 1987 and
1990. The author has written two previous editions. Reiman wrote this book after having
taught for seven years in the School of Justice at the American University in Washington
D.C. Reiman began writing this book because he wanted to educate his readers and try to
create change in the criminal justice system. He states that “we” could reduce crime if we
wanted to, but we don’t because government benefits from failing. Reiman gives the
following three main excuses that government uses to explain why crime is not being
reduced nor controlled: 1. Crime is an inevitable result of urbanization; 2: Crime is a
direct reflection of growth in the youth population; and finally, 3: We have yet to
discover how to control crime. Further, he goes on to explain how crime “pays” and that
crime is particularly targeted at the poor. I agree with Reiman’s main points because he
has defended them well with statistics and he used philosophy and sociology to explain
why society and government treat criminals as they do.
Reiman states that the criminal justice system is designed to fail. The theory he
used to explain this is the “Pyrrhic defeat theory.” The term comes from the Pyrrhic
victory, otherwise known as a military victory that is won at such a cost in troops and
treasure that it amounts to defeat. The Pyrrhic defeat theory argues instead that the
failures of the criminal justice system yields such benefits to those in positions of power
that it amounts to success. In other words, he is stating that the government benefits from
large recidivism rates. Reiman does explain, however, that this does not mean the
government is intentionally undermining the criminal justice system. He instead suggests
a lingering ignorance still held by the government that has been present in America’s
history. A large idea from history that is causing this need for criminalization is the idea
that there must be evil in order to have heroes. The poor socioeconomic class is the group
made to be the criminals in order to benefit the upper class and make people feel like they
are being taken care of. This portrayal of the poor as the criminals gives those in society a
demon to rage against and ensures that this demon is not the rich and powerful. Further,
this allows the rich and powerful to commit crimes that are just as bad if not worse as the
crimes of the poor, and get away with it. If the government were to change and lower
recidivism rates, the elite might have to deal with having the spotlight on their actions
and may have to face consequences for their wrong doings. This is why Reiman uses the
Pyrrhic defeat theory as his explanation.
Reiman seems to be a populist in his thinking and his book reflects this. He used
empirical and normative arguments. He used so many, in fact, that it made it difficult for
someone who is not as highly educated as he is to fully understand. Nonetheless, his
arguments were extremely cohesive. Every statement he made he backed up with
evidence and studies done by well recognized organizations. The only statement that he
didn’t back up was that of elites committing many crimes that were more harmful yet
were not a law nor prosecuted if there was a law. That part felt weak, but the rest of his
arguments were incredibly strong. The source Reiman used most in the first chapter was
the FBI’s index. The FBI index listed how many people are arrested every year and what
crimes they were convicted of. This allowed a clear link to the real world. This first point
Reiman made, that the criminal justice system is designed to fail, ties directly in to our
conversations in class about the elites’ control over government policies. If the general
people were making the policies and laws, the system would probably be much more
effective and fair. Everything he stated just kept hitting hard on the fact that our criminal
justice system really is set up to fail, and it seems this has not changed whatsoever since
1990. Reiman definitely called me to action with these statements.
Rise in crime goes hand in hand with rise in population. Crime rates go up as the
youth population grows. We don’t have enough knowledge to be able to lower the crime
rates even if we could. These are the three main excuses given by the government in
Reiman’s words. This part of the first chapter of the book is where he uses the most
cohesive arguments. For example, in contrast to the first excuse that crime is a direct
result of population growth, Reiman gives figures showing many cities that are large yet
have less crime per person than small cities. To further disprove the government’s first
excuse, Reiman explains that Japan has a much denser population per square mile than
the United States, and yet for every one homicide in Japan, the United States has nine or
more. Reiman did admit that the second excuse had some validity, but that it instead
proved that the government is failing horribly at controlling the rise in crime. He
explained that as the youth population grows, the crime rate does grow, but at a much
faster speed. This means that not only does the youth population contribute to crime
growth, but this growth is accelerating on its own for other reasons as well. Reiman
stated that this excuse by the government actually strengthens his case that they are
failing at controlling the crime rate when they could in fact lower it. The third excuse
seemed to be the most distasteful to Reiman. He gave many quotes from those in charge
of the police and courts that were stating that there is nothing that can be done at this
time, for one reason or another. Reiman seemed very angry because those who could
create the most change were the ones throwing their hands in the air and admitting defeat.
These excuses and Reiman’s contradictions of them again tie back into the idea that the
system is designed to fail and the government profits from this failure.
The arguments against these three excuses were the best arguments Reiman gave
in his first chapter. He didn’t seem to leave any part of the excuses untouched,
contradicting every point and adding arguments that weren’t brought up by the excuses.
Reiman’s arguments were built with many real world experiences. These arguments
seemed to be the most cohesive in that he not only contradicted each argument
individually, but he then went back and tied them to one another showing how the third
argument in fact contradicts the first and second. He did this by explaining that the first
and second imply that crime is inevitable and all the government can do is take care of it
when it happens; whereas in the third excuse the government implies something can be
done, they just don’t know how or what. Again, Reiman made it clear that there is
something that can be done, yet the government does nothing.
Crime “pays.” The last point Reiman made was the most philosophical. This is
where Reiman explained the sociological reasons of why a society “needs” crime. One of
the main points as to why society needs crime is that society needs crime to show citizens
what is incorrect behavior so they can know what “correct” behavior is. Further, crime
gives a sense of cohesiveness, again tying back into the statement made in the second
paragraph, there must be evil in order to have heroes. If the community is not threatened
by some sort of demon, why would they want to join forces and help one another? This is
the perfect explanation of how crime “pays.” These needs supposedly mean that the
government must have something that keeps crime going, such as a system that keeps
recidivism rates as high as possible.
Reiman’s last point is a perfect portrayal of a society controlled by fear. It tied in
the entire chapter and made it very clear why the criminal justice system is designed to
fail. It is saddening that Reiman wrote this in 1990, and yet someone who is living 20
years later knows exactly what he is talking about. Everything he brought up fits into
what is happening right now. For example, the need to have a huge war against terrorism
is a perfect example of our current society’s need for a “bad guy.” If anything, our society
has gotten worst when it comes to lowering crime rates. Many of the arguments Reiman
gave could be applied to our present issue of overcrowded prisons. Why do we need to
have so many people locked up? If we have overcrowded prisons then we must have a
huge crime rate, or at least that is the idea the government wants to create.
Jeffery Reiman wrote this book ten years before 9/11. He had no idea that what he
was writing about was going to get much worse with the Bush administration after the
Twin Towers were attacked. He was simply a professor that saw a large problem in the
criminal justice system that he worked so close in conjunction with. In the 20 years since
he wrote this book the statement that nothing succeeds like failure within the criminal
justice system has gotten even stronger. Until people become aware of how unjust the
“justice” system is nothing will change. This writing was more insightful than even
Reiman realized. It is very well written and helps readers be more aware of the world
around them. Hopefully at some point our society will have a true justice system, not a
system set to fail.