« Liberaltarianism | Main | Real Media Bias »
December 06, 2006
Jailhouse Blues
Former Prospect intern Elizabeth Henderson has a Q&A with Princeton's Bruce Western, author of Punishment and Inequality in America. Some quotes:
This got me thinking about the penal system as an institution that affected the poor in the United States in a way that was similar to the effect of welfare state structures on the lives of the poor in Europe.[...]
At the current time there are very high rates of incarceration, which means that young black men with low levels of schooling can fully expect to go to prison at some point during young adulthood. After they come out of prison, they do very poorly in the labor market and their family lives are disrupted. A steady job and a stable family life -- and, particularly, a stable marriage -- are important keys to desistance from crime. Because the penal system has these social impacts on economic opportunities, the involvement of families in crime is perpetuated over the life course by incarceration. [...]
When we actually calculated the estimates, we were finding that one in three black men now in their mid-30s had prison records, and that one in three black men who hadn’t been to college now had prison records; and if they had dropped out of high school the number was two in three. These were astonishingly high numbers and initially we thought we’d made mistakes in our calculations. We only have to go back 20 years to find a time when the penal system was not a pervasive presence in the lives of young black men.
I've got to run, so I'm not going to say a whole lot about all this, but the impact of our criminal justice system on the African-American community is virtually incalculable. You can take about any problematic trend -- low marriage rates, say, where a vast number of men are totally out of the pool due to incarceration and an even larger group is relatively less attractive due to past incarceration and its effects -- and the system comes to bear on it. If I had more time, I'd relate this to The Wire so I could be one of the cool bloggers, but I don't, so I won't.
December 6, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
At the current time there are very high rates of incarceration, which means that young black men with low levels of schooling can fully expect to go to prison at some point during young adulthood.It is a vexing problem but passivity won't help. I think social change will be most effective if personal respomsibility is emphasized at the same time.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Dec 6, 2006 5:58:54 PM
The whole "responsibility" argue while true pisses me off. Let me explain why. I am supposedly a representative of the American ideal. I grew up as a black poor kid down South, went to a top undergradudate university, went to a top law school and I have a middle class job. I kept out of trouble mostly through a lot of effort to avoid the problems that others faced.
I watched as some of my family who are poor went down different tracks. Some of it is personal responsibility, and some of it was not. Figuring out which part is which in such a screwed up society is a near impossible thing to do. I have a distant cousin who was incarcerated for selling drugs who received a fairly lengthy sentence. Do I think he should have to pay for his crime? Sure.
However, let's compare his outcome to the mostly white colleges and university that I attended. Where I saw such behavior in some of my classmates as well. Indeed a few students while I was there were arrested, put in jail and were out before I graduated while my cousin still was in jail.
Were these people acting more socially responsible than my cousin? Are you requiring more social responsibility from blacks than you are requiring of whites? That's my problem with the discussion, and why I get pissed off. Because I feel like you are.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 6, 2006 7:58:59 PM
PS
To illustrate my point. Not only is the incarcerated person jailed, but he or she under present law can not obtain financial aid once they are brought back into society- and that means that he or she will not, in all likelihood, be able to go to college even if they wanted to do so. How does this make for social responsibility?
Posted by: akaison | Dec 6, 2006 8:02:35 PM
Much of the problem can be summed up in three words: war. on. drugs.
Posted by: terry in AZ | Dec 6, 2006 8:14:50 PM
"Much of the problem can be summed up in three words: sub. urban. parents.
Posted by: dan | Dec 6, 2006 8:30:23 PM
It's all that corny stuff that you don't want to hear about like families with fathers who are involved. Personal responsibility, etc.
What it is *NOT* is all society's fault.
Wanna change things? Promote marriage, monogamy, values, and all that other stuff that you can't stand.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 6, 2006 8:31:39 PM
Promote marriage, monogamy, values, and all that other stuff that you can't stand.
Those things are promoted, Fred. Any other ideas?
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 6, 2006 9:04:16 PM
"which means that young black men with low levels of schooling can fully expect to go to prison at some point during young adulthood."
That sounds as if the 'man' is going to swoop in and snatch these poor black kids up and haul them to jail for being uneducated and black.
"Those things are promoted, Fred. Any other ideas?"
Then why are 70% of black kids born out of wedlock?
Much of the problem can be summed up in two words: Great Society
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 6, 2006 9:33:50 PM
akaison has said what needs to be said. Treatment of infractions by white and black young men is different. If you tell me different, you're being disingenuous as hell. And Fred, if you have anything to say to me, I have the dick your mother swallowed to shove up your banned ass. Fuck you.
Posted by: nolo | Dec 6, 2006 10:11:24 PM
I can't believe I said that. Ezra, I'll depart if you'd like.
Posted by: nolo | Dec 6, 2006 10:12:57 PM
Fred:
I don't normal get personal, but this kind of shit by folks like you brings it out in me. I didn't have a family with a father. I had a step father who beat the shit out of me as a kid. I had a mom who was a drunk. I graduated high school living alone. I went to a top undegrad where I competed effectively against white students. I went to a law school where I graduated with descent grades. I passed the bar. I am practicing law now. I did all that facing the racial issues of this society, because of programs like affirmative action and because along the way I got lucky to find people who could see my abilities.
Please stop talking as though you know from experience what you are talking about. You don't. To someone like me who has actually pulled myself up my bootstraps to have to read idiotic postings like yours about what you think black folks with my kind of background needs is not only insulting, it's just pathetic.
You are talking from ignorance. I am here as example of just how ignorant you are. You have nothing to say to someone like me about what it takes to make it because frankly you could never compete with me. You have nothing other than your talking points to add to the conversation, and that shows.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 6, 2006 10:50:53 PM
Fred knows nothing. In a bad way.
Posted by: nolo | Dec 6, 2006 10:55:23 PM
Much of the problem can be summed up in two words: Great Society
Here are two more, more to the point: poverty and prejudice. The Great Society programs wouldn't have even been necessary of not for those. Rich white kids get off with probation while poor blacks rot in jail, degraded and marked for life. You think that doesn't affect every aspect of life, including family life?
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 6, 2006 11:12:41 PM
I should add that if the white and well off were treated the same way before the law as blacks, the laws and practices regarding punishment, treatment and reform would be changed immediately. The prisons would overflow several times over, and people with influence, people that the powerful and middle class care about, would be raising hell.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 6, 2006 11:23:35 PM
akaison, Sanpete, good good points. Really. You two said what I wanted to say in response to this.
Along with terry in AZ, of course. The boneheaded War on Drugs is filling our prisons with felons who have no other types of crimes on their record, who are nonviolent, and who are now marked for life from their experience. They go to prison and find themselves alongside our murderers and rapists, and pretty quickly they learn the skills they need to survive in that environment, skills that, while necessary at the time, are unfortunately not in much demand outside prison.
The War on Drugs has also been a tool of those who fear minorities. Look at the insane sentencing requirements for crack versus cocaine. Cocaine is the drug of choice for white professionals, crack is found in poor black neighborhoods.
The meth scourge may finally be a catalyst for change, now that it is moving from poor whites to suburban whites, especially suburban soccer moms. If we start sending PTA presidents, school volunteers and team mothers to prison, people will actually take notice.
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 7, 2006 12:24:25 AM
It's really funny to listen to a Republican't blather on about "personal responsibility" when their own leaders refuse to accept any.
Posted by: merlallen | Dec 7, 2006 7:23:13 AM
So, promoting family personal responsibility, etc. is not a good idea? That pretty much the drift here?
I have the dick your mother swallowed to shove up your banned ass. Fuck you.
Classy, nolo, really classy. You seem like the kind of girl every father wanted to have as a daughter.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 7, 2006 8:16:52 AM
Well, the two of you have been pretty classy to each other. And now that's over: Move on in the Nolo/Fred beef. I don't want it in my comment threads any more.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 7, 2006 9:37:54 AM
I'm glad to see this post. The impact of the criminal justice system on the country in general, and African-Americans in particular, is the great underdiscussed issue, for which there's been no space in our national debate since 9-11. It's larger than just the War on Drugs, of course, but for. say, a Democratic presidential candidate looking to win support of African-Americans and stake on his own political turf, that would be a good place to start, a call for immediate withdrawal from the War on Drugs. It's racism in effect, if not in intent, a distinction without much of a difference. And talk about an issue that should unite liberals and libertarians...it would separate the fake liberatarians who really care only about taxes from the real ones.
Posted by: davidmizner | Dec 7, 2006 10:08:58 AM
"A steady job and a stable family life -- and, particularly, a stable marriage -- are important keys to desistance from crime."
Given that many drug offendors are in prisons located far from their families, their relationships become even more tenuous.
Posted by: CParis | Dec 7, 2006 10:23:04 AM
Call me a glutton for punishment, but I'll step into this...
So, promoting family personal responsibility, etc. is not a good idea? That pretty much the drift here?
I'll try not to speculate on why you have this misconception, Fred, but no, that is not the drift. (And you lose four Good Faith Debating Points for redefining the terms as "family personal responsibility" — something so vacuous and content-free is useless. It would be more honest and/or intelligent of you to use your earlier phrase, "marriage, monogamy, values." If you think that's what it's about, stand up for it. And no, in fact, that's not always a good idea, I'd say, but sometimes it might be. But anyways, this is nitpicking.)
Speaking for myself, I think it's not enough. That's what you and Toke seem to be ignoring. You said "What it is *NOT* is all society's fault." You seem to believe not just the negation of that ("It is not the case that the problem is all society's fault"), which I think is true but, again, useless.
No, you seem to believe the polar opposite of it ("The problem is not society's fault at all") which is ridiculous. If you have ever shown that you believe that racism against minorities even exists any more, that it comes in more forms than just violent outbursts, or that it can exist (exist, be practiced, make its effects known, whatever) through institutions as well as individuals, please link to comment threads, because I sure can't remember.
It looks to me — and everyone here but Toke and Guy, I imagine, but I shouldn't assume — that you're just waging a war on straw and blaming 100 percent of the problem on 20 percent (or 40 percent, or hell, I'll be generous to you, 80 percent if that's what you want to believe) of the cause. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Cyrus | Dec 7, 2006 10:36:03 AM
Just about every libertarian I know is against the war on drugs, so I don't know who these fake libertarians are. On the other hand, there are plenty of liberals who are happy to support the war on drugs.
Akaison, your story is inspiring and doubtless you can offer a lot of insight to those of us who are concerned with urban poverty and racial disparities. However, I strongly object to the notion that only blacks (or only the poor) get to have a say in how we deal with this problem. You want society to try and solve the issue, if so then we all get to try and determine how to do so.
As far as sentencing difference between blacks and whites, I wonder how much this is racial and how much is poverty. Granted, with the endemic poverty amoung urban blacks the effect is somewhat the same, but the solutions seem to me to be different. If the problem is primarily poverty then working to ensure more legal resources are availible to the poor would probably make a big difference. If the problem is actually racism, the solutions will probably be more difficult to achieve.
I do think though that many of the government programs put into place with good intentions have been detrimental, providing perverse incentives. The marriage gap between the poor and uneducated and the middle class is huge, and probably a part of the problem. How to change that is of course not readily apparent.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Dec 7, 2006 10:44:07 AM
Move on in the Nolo/Fred beef. I don't want it in my comment threads any more.
Yowsa, boss.
akaison,
I really admire your achievements in the face of adversity. Your are living proof that there is, indeed, opportunity out there for anyone who truly wants to succeed and is willing to work for it. Your lesson in personal responsibility is inspiring.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 7, 2006 10:44:14 AM
If we start sending PTA presidents, school volunteers and team mothers to prison, people will actually take notice.
Yeah...they'll take notice, all right. They'll know that if they do Meth, they lose their comfortable life they now enjoy and will wind up as someone else's bitch in prison.
It's called deterrence.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 7, 2006 10:47:07 AM
Yes, Fred, that is exactly what Akaison meant us to understand by his story--that everyone else in society can go hang for all he cares because "he's got his." Oh, I'm sorry, that *isn't* what Akaison meant, that's the libertarian mantra.
Here's my take on the issue, I can't speak for anyone else. There are a lot of people in our society, and we need and should want all of them to do well. We might differ on how, or whether, we as individuals or we as a society might choose to help them do well. But it is undeniable that if every child in this country were born into a happy, healthy, wealthy and wise family and grew up to be happy, healthy, wealthy and wise we, as a society, would be better off. I'd have better, happier, doctors, teachers, mechanics, cleaning ladies, relatives, children, people for my children to marry, people to care for me when I get old, etc...
The big question is: how can we get there? The Fred answer is that life is a lottery and that you have to accept the lottery ticket you are issued. He likes to think that some people, the better people (people he admires, people he would like to emulate) can somehow "earn" a better lottery ticket (not to mix my metaphor) and that the others by accepting the lottery ticket they are handed and by losing in the lottery are, somehow, "worse." So say you are born black, or poor, or to a broken home, or your parents die in a car crash (or in Iraq), or you have a health problem, or the schools in your area are no good--if you somehow overcome those problems Fred says "great!" if you don't, failing at a young age to figure out how to stop being poor, black, sick, orphaned, the child of a soldier in Iraq, in a bad school, etc... well--its just your fault and society, though worse off because you are worse off, should do nothing about it.
And that is, essentially, the crux of the matter. My self interest, as well as my ethical and human interest, leads me to prefer attempting to find solutions to inequality that create situations in which people can get the help they need to succeed. The situation of the intense racism of this society is one particularly knotty area for work but others are, simply, not that controversial. Take a baby who is abandoned in the street--Fred's pretend libertarianism, if taken seriously, would argue that we should simply let the baby die in the street instead of having the police pick it up, take it to a social worker, and find good parents/schools/health care for it. I'd prefer to use social forces to care for the child until it grows up to be a happy citizen. Why should we stop at an abandoned baby? Don't our duties extend (and our self interest) to all children in our society? Shouldn't we step in to help where (for whatever reason) family and neighborhood can not? And I'd argue the same for our fellow citizens and others living in this society right up through until old age.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Dec 7, 2006 10:57:54 AM
