Brandon Cummings
Rebel Palm
Sociology 213.005
7 May 1999
Prisons: Controlling the Middle Class Through Fear of the Poor
The hope of liberty and opportunity is the only incentive to life, especially the prisoner’s life. Society has sinned so long against him that it ought at least to leave him that. I am not very Sanguine that it will, or that any real change in that direction can take place until the conditions that breed both the prisoner and the jailer will be forever abolished.
--Emma Goldman from Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure, 1911.
1. Tell a little about what prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera is, just in case we don't know, so we have the same working definition. How do we recognize someone who is a prisoner?
For our purposes we defined a prisoner or ex-convict to be anyone who had been previously convicted of a felony. Though the exact characteristics of such a person vary, generally we found that they are of a low economic level and have little education.
1a. Which type of deviance definition applies? (From lecture, material on reserve)
For our topic many definitions apply very well. In fact, the absolutist, statistical, reactive, normative, and functionalist definitions all apply. The absolutist definition clearly applies to those who are convicted of breaking the law because, as any 5-year-old can tell you, going to prison means you are bad. This definition relies the theory that the nature of the act (in this case being imprisoned) is intrinsically bad. This definition is also very naïve.
The second definition, statistical deviance, also applies. Even though the number of people committing crimes has been increasing (per capita) it is could still be considered statistically rare for people to be convicted of a crime (about one in twenty). This definition is also naïve and tells us very little over all.
The third definition, normative deviance, presumes that all deviant acts are equally deviant whether or not they are known. That is to say that anyone who commits a crime is deviant, whether or not they are caught. While this definition fits prisoners and ex-convicts, it also fits several groups of people that do not follow into our defined category (see above) so this isn’t the best definition either.
The reactive definition of deviance is much closer to the proper definition since to be a prisoner, an ex-con, or a convicted criminal of any type requires that you have been convicted of a crime. Therefore, there has already been a reaction to your deviant act.
In addition to the reactive definition, the functionalist perspective also provides considerable insight into why society considers those who are convicted of breaking the law deviants. People who break the law serve an important function: after all, if no one ever broke the law there would be no need for the majority of society to be protected through institutions empowered by the status group. Police would be unemployed and politicians wouldn’t be able to get elected by scaring people into voting for their tough on crime. In general people would begin to see that the status group, the rich and powerful elite, weren’t as needed as the majority had once thought. In fact, the they might even come to see the rich and powerful as the biggest threat to their continued well-being. Thus, crime is kept at a level where it is still perceived as a legitimate threat to the average American. As Reiman stated this is necessary to continue the false picture that the lower classes are the biggest threat to a middle class American’s prosperity and station in life.
1b. Some statistics would be all right, but not too many. I.e., what percentage of the population has been or continues to be imprisoned?
Statistics about this topic were primarily available through two sources; the Bureau of Prisons, and the Department of Justice, these numbers were all gleaned from the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998. Unusually (for statistics) they paint a clear picture of the problems inherent in this situation. They make some very disturbing issues clearly visible. For example, if recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated one of every twenty persons (5.1%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime. Men are more likely than women (9% to 1.1%) to be imprisoned during their lifetime. Chances of going to prison are also higher for blacks at 16.2% and Hispanics at 9.4% than for whites at 2.5%. Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 28% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 16% of Hispanic males and 4.4% of white males. Forty-eight percent of jailed women reported having been physically or sexually abused prior to admission; 27% had been raped. Sixty-three percent of jail inmates belonged to racial or ethnic minorities in 1996. In 1991 fewer than half of all prisoners were sentenced for a violent crime. Of the 108,580 persons released from prisons in 11 States in 1983, an estimated 62.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.8% were re-convicted, and 41.4% returned to prison or jail. New Mexico’s recidivism rate for 1991 was 83.8%. In total, 5 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 1996 2.8% of all U.S. adult residents. At mid-1998, jails and prisons held an estimated 1.8 million people approximately 1 out of every 150 U.S. residents.2. Historical progress of criminals from normal to deviant? Or compare cultures in which prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera are considered normal and deviant.
2a. Has it always been considered deviant? If not, when did it become deviant?
2b. What were the major social and/or economic changes that led to the change in perception of prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera from normal to deviant? Give a "story" like the one about abortion and about witchcraft.
2c. Why in this society (if so) and not some other?
The world’s societies have always considered criminals, especially prisoners, deviant. From the earliest instances of places of confinement, primarily places of detention before the real punishment death, mutilation, branding, et cetera was meted out. To banishment, which was an especially popular punishment for serious offenders. In Russia prisoners were sent to Siberia; Spanish and Portuguese convicts were sent to Africa. Even though banishment removed thousands of prisoners to other continents, prisons, especially in Europe, continued to be extremely overcrowded. In the 17th and 18th centuries, overcrowding forced most European cities to convert dozens of buildings into makeshift jails. American colonists (possibly because they had seen the dire results of this overcrowding and possibly because of their limited resources) seem to have favored corporal and capitol punishment. Punishment through public humiliation and degradation were commonly proscribed for minor offenses. Hanging and burning at the stake were among the preferred ways to carry out a death sentence. One of America’s earliest efforts to operate a prison took place in an abandoned copper mine in Simsbury, Connecticut. This underground prison opened in 1773. It was established, permanently, as a state prison in 1790. The first recorded American prison riots occurred there the next year as a result of violence, poor management, escapes, and assaults. There was severe overcrowding. 32 men slept in a room 21 feet long , 10 feet wide, and less than 7 feet high. The prisoners were secured with iron felters around the ankles. While the prisoners were at work a chain fastened to a block was locked to the prisoners’ ankles. The punishments in colonial and post-revolutionary America were relatively harsh compared with modern sentencing practices. For instance, burglary, robbery, and counterfeiting were punishable, for the first offense, by a term not to exceed ten years, and for the second offense, by life imprisonment. And though prison reform in the colonies can be traced to the arrival of William Penn in 1682, when Penn established a penal code that retained the death penalty only in cases of homicide and allowed the substitution of imprisonment or hard labor for former bloody punishments, these anecdotes demonstrate that prisoners have been looked upon as deviants for a very long time.
2d. What's different about the culture of this society that makes prisoners deviant as opposed to the culture of a society in which prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera would not be. What are the values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and norms that prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera opposes, thus making it deviant?
Although most are not unique to our society, there are several reasons why societies view prisoners as deviants. By distinguishing criminals from the rest of society not for people's actions but for who they are prisons and the "fight against crime" are used to attack target populations and garner obedience from the general population. As writer Michel Foucault said, Let us conceive of places of punishment as a Garden of the Laws that families would visit on Sundays (Foucault, 111). Prisons are places where criminals are punished, but they are also gardens that remind citizens of what could happen to them if they were to become a criminal. In this way, prisons help craft a more obedient population outside the walls, outside the garden.
Probably the only way in which our society differs from others with regard to how deviant we consider prisoners is based in the strong emphasis we place on the Puritan Work Ethic. This is seen most clearly in the case of ex-cons, first we force them to declare on job applications that they are convicted felons (thus keeping them from becoming productive members of our society) then we look down our long Puritan noses at them for not working. This coincides with the Interactionist theory (labeling) since it creates a self-filling prophecy.
2e. Can you speculate as to what kind of social-structural change would have to occur for prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera to no longer be considered deviant?
The notion that crime, the "criminal personality," and imprisonment naturally go together is a myth. For the stigma attached to prisoners to change we would need to separate the issue of imprisonment from the issue of crime; they are not about the same things, and one does not cure the other. One complaint by liberals of the new incarceration society that America is building (those few liberals who haven't jumped onto the "get-tough-on-crime" bandwagon, that is) is that it is incredibly expensive. Of course, on the surface they are right; some control unit facilities cost $800,000 per prisoner just to build (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998), and that doesn't include living costs for the prisoner ($30,000-40,000 a year for general population prisoners). However, those who hold power in this society see things a little bit differently, and regard the rising costs of imprisonment as worth the investment. Since prisons control not just the criminal class but the entire population, compared with the possibility of a Northern Ireland-style military occupation of American cities, prisons actually obtain social control of the entire society at a relatively low social and economic cost for the rich. For most people, though, the cost is devastating. Capitalism and its sidekick liberal democracy give us the vote, constitutional rights, consumer buying power, and a trunkful of goodies. Why aren't we free? Because though some of us have toys, we still don't have power in this society; that privilege is reserved for capitalists and the state. Why does this tiny class of society have all that power, while the majority has so little? Why don't we just take power from the rich and vote the bastards out? Because the ruling class have developed other ways to control the population, so that our political power is much weaker than we are led to believe. Prisons are the linchpins to this social control; they guarantee our submission to the powers that be by opposing citizens to criminals. The only way to change this situation would be for those of us outside prison walls to align ourselves with those inside. The public perception that crime and prison automatically go together might then be corrected. 3. Who are the lawmakers? Or "how do the rules arise?" 3a. Are/were there any moral entrepreneurs that led a campaign to have prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera considered deviant? Rules are the product of someone’s initiative and we think of the people who exhibit such enterprise as moral entrepreneurs (Becker, 147). Since the beginning of human society there have been status groups that sought to make rules or laws, that would control society in general. Thus, the people who cannot follow these rules have deviated from the prescribed path. The only group of moral entrepreneurs, in our society, which have not sought to capitalize off convicts seems to be the notable moral entrepreneurs whose support resides with the economically disadvantaged, for example Martin Luther King, Jr. 3b. Is there an interest group that would benefit from having prisoner, ex-cons, et cetera labeled deviant? What is the interest? There are several interest groups that benefit from labeling prisoners and ex-cons as deviants. Indeed some believe that the entire status quo of the American system is maintained. Certainly many, many politicians have been successfully elected to office based on their tough on crime stance take New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson loudly lauded plan to end good time [early release of prisoners in return for the prisoners’ good behavior] in New Mexico, as an example. As far as interest for the rule enforcers, Becker succinctly sums it up: Although some policemen undoubtedly have a crusading interest in stamping out evil, it is probably much more typical for policemen to have a certain detached and objective view of his job. He is not so much concerned with the content of any particular rule as he is with the fact that it is his job to enforce the rule. When the rules are changed, the policeman punishes what was once acceptable behavior just as he ceases to punish behavior that has been made legitimate by a change in the rules. The enforcer, then, may not be interested in the fact that the content of the rule as such, but only in the fact that the existence of the rule provides him with a job, a profession, and a raison d’être. (Becker, 156) Thus, the status elite maintains the system which they have built. And the rule enforcers rely upon this system of rules without directing much attention to the content of the rules. 3c. Who are the people (the "audience") that considers prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera deviant and who doesn't? What's different about the ones that do and the ones that don't? The audience that usually views prisoners as deviants are generally constructed from members of the economically advantaged who wish to ensure a politically docile and economically useful population. Prisons are useful for the powers that be; they are only a problem for those locked inside them, their loved ones, and the people whose freedoms are infringed upon by them. Prisons are the elite’s mechanism of control to make sure that the middle-class looks with suspicion upon the lower classes (sometimes called the dangerous classes ). 4. Who are the law-breakers? Or "why do they do it?" 4a. Can you characterize in any way by demographics, by subculture, by status, whatever how prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera are different from "normal" people? 4b. Are there any particular social conditions that led to this group or condition becoming considered as deviant? In our society, when most people think of crime, they do not think of the specific criminal acts themselves so much as they do an imaginary criminal class that commits them. It's always these few delinquents that commit violent crimes and that have to be brought under control, so the story goes. The criminal in capitalism is defined not so much by their unlawful acts, but by the lifestyle he or she leads: gangsta, hoodlum, dope fiend, dealer, thug, whore. The criminal exists before the crime is even committed; a criminal's prison record is merely a badge that recognizes him or her for doing what is expected. This is one reason why rich white people rarely go to jail: the rich and the white are not defined as criminals in this society, therefore when they break the law it's easier to have sympathy for them for "making a mistake" and to give them a lesser punishment, or no punishment at all. The criminal class is the scapegoat for America's social ills and the justification for spending millions of dollars on building more prisons, hiring more cops, and for drafting tough new anti-crime laws. By trying to make life tough for criminals, we make life tough for ourselves, because the laws that get passed to control the criminal class apply to everyone. If you, the good citizen, somehow run up against the law, well, you must be a delinquent, a member of the notorious criminal class. Better shape up, obey the laws and avoid any trouble so you won't be one of those criminals! By distinguishing criminals from the rest of society not for people's actions but for who they are prisons and the fight against crime are used to attack target populations (the poor, uneducated, and to some extent minorities) and garner obedience from the general population. 5. Who are the law enforcers? (See Question Number 3 subsection B above). "What is the form of social control?" 5a. Is it formal or informal? 6. What theoretical perspective best explains why prisoners, ex-cons, et cetera is "deviant"? Prisons are not about decreasing crime. In 1976 the Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects examined the role of prisons in deterring crime. Their report concluded that states like California and Massachusetts, for example, would have to increase their prison populations 150 percent and 310 percent (from mid-'70s levels) to achieve a 10 percent reduction in crime. Minnesota's Assistant Commissioner of Corrections admits, "There is no evidence of a relationship between the incarceration rate and violent crime. We're in the business of tricking people into thinking that spending hundreds of millions [of dollars] for new prisons will supposedly make them safe. In the prison power must be based on something other than internalized morality and the custodians find themselves confronting men who must be forced, bribed, or cajoled into compliance. (Sykes, 47) Prisons are not about rehabilitation. In 1981 New York State Correction Commissioner Thomas Coughlin confessed, The department is no longer engaged in rehabilitative and programming efforts, but is rather forced to warehouse people and concentrate on finding the next cell. Packing in more and more bodies inside their walls is what prisons do; rehabilitating lost souls in order to return them to society is not. Perhaps most shocking of all to our common sensibilities, prisons are not about punishing people for crimes they commit. Of course, this is one of the things they do (as well as punish people for crimes they did not commit), but it is not the primary function of prisons. Prisons are first and foremost about social control, about suppressing dissent, about creating a more politically obedient and economically useful population. Prisons are the enforcement arm of functionalism. Sure, they isolate and warehouse criminals to keep them from the rest of us, but prisons are about controlling "the rest of us" as much as they are about controlling criminals. Two social realities that coexist within prisons: the official structure of rules and procedures, and the informal, but more powerful, inmate world that is controlled by prison subculture. Thus, the social control maintained is two-fold. It is formal in that it is a constant threat: if you are convicted of a crime you will go to jail. If you are in jail you will be forced to obey rules or you will be further confined. But the majority of prison's effects are in the realm of informal social control. The prevailing institutions and status groups must protect the majority of the population from the evil criminals, thereby perpetuating themselves. And if you, the good citizen, somehow run up against the law, well, you must be a delinquent, a member of the notorious criminal class. Prisoners have a difficult time getting a job because they are required to notify all potential employers of their felon status on job applications. College scholarship funds for former prisoners have been slashed or eliminated. By sticking people in prison, the system not only protects the status quo, but actually reinforces it by condemning prisoners to poverty and stigmatizing them as lifetime members of the criminal class. 5b. What is the degree of reaction? 5c. What is the tolerance level? I.e., is there a threshold the deviant actor has to cross before he or she will be considered deviant by the audience? The degree of reaction varies (to some extent) due to the crime in question. As averagemembers of American society, most of us can remember becoming too drunk. So it isn’t all that difficult for us to sympathize with the person convicted of DWI (especially first-time offenders). So a one-time DWI offender who was white and middle class would probably be tolerated among us easily he just made a mistake. Most of us however, have never attempted to rob a bank or sell drugs, so our collective sympathies do not extend to the bank robber or drug dealer. After a prisoner is released from prison society judges him by how well he re-socializes. This is the reverse of all of the socialization he or she has just been subjected to. When a convict goes to prison to be punished he or she goes through the prisonization process, this dire experience covers everything from the monotony of institutionalized living to the fear of sexual assault. This prisonization process follows what is called a U-curve. This means that the prisoner enters prison and rapidly re-socializes to the "society of the captives." Just before leaving the institution, the inmate re-socializes themselves closer to the norms and values of the society that exists outside the prison walls. However, the prisoner is never quite re-socialized to the same level and has an extremely hard time adapting to a society that he or she had trouble adapting to in the first place. Bibliography Criminal Justice Research Associates, Telephone Interview with Assistant Commissioner Dan O'Brien, May 28, 1996. Foucault Michael, Discipline and Punishment, (New York: Vintage Books), 1979. U.S. Department of Justice, 1998, "Bureau of Justice Statistics - Prisoners in 1998" http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov.bjs.p98.htm Leo Carroll, 1974. Hack, Blacks, and Cons: Lexinton Books. John D. Wooldredge, 1998. "Inmate Lifestyles and Opportunities for Victimization" Sage Periodicals Press: Thousand Oaks. Lockwood, 1980. Prison Sexual Violence: New York: Elsevier Publishing Company. Kalinich, 1980. The Inmate Economy. Lexington: Lexington Books. Sykes, Grisham, 1958. The Society of Captives. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schoen, 1972. Sing Sing, The View from Within. (Anonymous Usenet Posting No Publisher Listed). Fleisher, 1989. Warehousing Violence. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Govenor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission, 1990. New Mexico Prison Gangs.