In Chapter 4, Alexander covers ways in which having a criminal record disempowers those who are trying to reconstruct their lives. I kind of want to break down the chapter by facts I found shocking from each section, because it’s a well-outlined series of things she throws at you.
In the Brave New World section, Alexander writes that “judges are not required to inform criminal defendants of some of the most important rights they are forfeiting when they plead guilty to a felony,” and in fact they “may not even be aware” everything a felony conviction takes away (p. 143). So from what I gather, Alexander explain a few important effects that having a criminal record brings about, the main ones being restrictions from public housing, job discrimination, debt, fees, and disenfranchisement.
Access to public housing became more restricted during President Clinton’s term. The 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act was a modified version of his “one strike and you’re out” rhetoric that he took on to appear as a Tough Dude President. The act authorized public housing agencies to say no to or event any drug offenders, felons, or anyone believed to be those things. And funding can be taken away if agencies are found to not be screening effectively enough. So of course people who run public housing programs are going to be strict about whom they let in! There aren’t definitive rates on who is actively denied public housing. But 65 million people have criminal records and over 650,000 people are released each year. All these restrictions lead to homelessness. But research shows that access to stable housing is connected to employment and job retention. Of course, getting a job when released from jail is another battle. It’s within the law for employers to not hire people based on past criminal charges in 40 states. And even when ex-offenders find these jobs, they are often located in areas one has to drive to…something they’d be able to do if they didn’t get their licenses revoked.
Alexander argues that by putting such a high proportion of Black men in prison, and discriminating against criminals, one can get away with (well, Americans can get away with) being racist without ever having to mention race by name.
Then, when they get jobs, ex-offenders are barely being able to survive on their paychecks because they have to contend with an exorbitant number of fees. These include, but are not limited to fees, costs, and fines, drug testing and drug treatment bills, child-support, probation supervision fees, detention costs, application fee for court-appointed counsel, sentence report fees, and residence work-release fees.
And no, government programs don’t really help, at least, not for the long haul. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families caps off at 5 years. So within that time, an ex-offender is supposed to find a job that will bring them (and potentially their family) out of poverty. And before you ask, no, people with “drug-related felony convictions can not receive funded public assistance” (p. 157).
The latter half of the chapter deals with the emotional aspects of “going home” after a prison stay, and stereotypes of criminals glorified by television shows. I’m not too interested in going into the part of the chapter – but please comment below with your thoughts about it! I am guilty of doing this though, not gonna lie, The Wire is an excellent show. But the episodes I’ve seen never went into all of the effects having a criminal record produces (the main characters of course being gangsters who made enough money to support their drug-runners). Did anyone else ever watch this show? There is A LOT to critically discuss about it, and I’m super curious to see if anyone has any comments.
I’m more interested in the “Boxed” sections of this chapter. On page 153, it says that “EEOC guidelines do not have the force of the law” but that judges refer to them on cases of discrimination. I’m a little confused about this myself. I recently got a background check done for a new job, but I also signed papers that claimed that the institution where I’d be working doesn’t discriminate based on past criminal offenses…and then another couple papers explaining that, really, my employers can discriminate based on whatever they want basically, and not hire me at their discretion. Even my fancy big-girl internship at a purportedly serious institution had these sort of conflicting standards. And I’m wondering about the validity of the research Alexander refers to in these sections, on how discrimination occurs against people of color even when “the box” does not exist (the box here referring of course to a job application question regarding past criminal offenses). How can law-makers get to the root of this sort of discrimination?
Chapter 5 goes back to the big picture. Alexander reminds us again that “the cage” is a racial caste system, fed by The War on Drugs, which condemns Black men more than any other group in the country. I like how here, other pieces of a broken system are filled in. For example on page 185, she writes, “Because there is no meaningful check on the exercise of police discretion, racial biases are granted free rein.” I’m wondering as to what these meaningful checks would be? How can police officers be held accountable for their discriminatory actions?
Alexander also explains why this recent system of mass incarceration is not quite like decades past. Some argue that the Drug War is just perpetuating a long run of incarcerating people of color. Alexander points out that before the mid-1980s, the criminal justice system punished a small proportion of the total population. So while people of color have always been discriminated against, the War on Drugs (or rather, the series of acts that fall under this umbrella) has demonstrated the full force of punitive behavior the U.S. government can enact.
SOC320: Law, Society and Civil Rights 