Saturday, November 19, 2022

6.6.3: Recidivism

 6.6.3: Recidivism

 If a goal of prisons is to teach their clients to stay away from crime, they are colossal failures. 

We can measure their failure by the recidivism rate—the percentage of released prisoners who are rearrested. 

Within just three years of their release, two out of three (68 percent) are rearrested, and half are back in prison (Durose et al. 2014). 

Looking at Figures 6.3 and 6.4, it is safe to conclude that prisons fail to teach people that crime doesn’t pay. 

Figure 6.3 How Fast They Return: Recidivism of U.S. Prisoners



6.6.2: The Decline of Violent Crime

 6.6.2: The Decline of Violent Crime

 As you have seen, judges have put more and more people in prison, and legislators have passed the three-strikes laws. 

As these changes took place, the crime rate dropped sharply. 

Sociologists conclude that getting tough on criminals reduced crime, but they stress that this is only one of the reasons that violent crime dropped (Sharkey 2018). 

Other reasons include higher employment, a lower birth rate, an aging population, and even abortion. There are even those who say that the best explanation is the elimination of lead in gasoline (Drum 2013).

 When the FBI reported an increase in violent crime in 2015 and 2016, politicians and reporters stoked fears of a long rise in violent crime.

 However, this did not happen, and violent crime again fell in 2017 and 2018 (FBI 2018). 

While violent crime fell recently, the U.S. still deals with violence tied to guns. 

The following video addresses the gun problem in the U.S. Watch Why Is It So Hard To Stop Gun Violence in the United States?

6.6.1: Street Crime and Prisons

Let’s begin our overview of street crime and prisons with a stunning statistic: 

The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population but about 25 percent of the world’s prisoners (Notar 2019).

 One of 40 Americans age 15 and over, 6,750,000 people, is on probation, on parole, or in jail or prison (Statistical Abstract 2019: Tables 10, 380, 381, 386). 

No other country comes close to these totals. 

There are so many prisoners that, running out of places to keep them, the state and federal governments pay private companies to operate “private prisons.” About 128,000 Americans are locked up in these for-profit prisons (N. Smith 2019). 

To see how the number of prisoners has surged, look at Figure 6.2. As you can see, the number of prisoners peaked in 2009 and has been dropping since then. With the decline in violent crime, which we will review shortly, this decrease is likely to be permanent. The broken line on this figure gives a rough indication of what the future might look like. Figure 6.2 How Much Is Enough? The Explosion in the Number of U.S. Prisoners

SOURCE: Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995:Table 349; 2014:Tables 2, 6, 363; 2019: Table 380. 


The broken line is the author's estimate. The horizontal axis of the graph represents “Years” ranging from 1970 to 2020 in increments of 10 while the vertical axis represents “Number of federal and state prisoners (in thousands)” ranging from 0 to 2,000 in increments of 100. 

The graph begins slightly below 200 in 1970, which is shown increasing till 2009, beyond which it is shown to decline. 

The data presented in the graph is as follows: 

1970: 196,000 

1980: 316,000 

1990: 774,000 

2000: 1,391,000 

2009: It is marked with a text box that reads, “2009 was the peak of incarceration, with 1,616,000 prisoners.” 

2015: 1,527,000 Note: All data is approximate. 183 Who are these prisoners?

 Let’s compare them with the U.S. population. As you look at Table 6.3, several things may strike you. Forty-three percent of all prisoners are younger than 35, and almost all the prisoners are men. 

Then there is this remarkable statistic: Although African Americans make up just 12.7 percent of the U.S. population, there are more African American prisoners than white prisoners. 

Table 6.3 Comparing Prison Inmates with the U.S. Population

Notes: Age refers to Americans age 18 and over, the percentages will not agree with other totals in this book. 

For education, the percentages are based on Americans age 25 and over. Age, race-ethnicity, and sex of prisoners are from Carson and Anderson while their marital status and education are from Sourcebook. 

The "other" Race-Ethnicity category is the remainder after Sourcebook lists African American, white, and Hispanic apparently includes Asian Americans, Native Americans, and people who claim two or more races. 

Marital Status of prisoners only applies to inmates on death row. 

Data not available for other inmates. Sources: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics.” Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 2013.; Carson, Ann E., and Elizabeth Anderson. “Prisoners in 2015.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 29, 2016.; Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. CensusBureau, 2019. Published annually:Tables 6, 8, 10, 32, 56, 382. 

Finally, note how marriage and education—two of the major ways that society “anchors” people into mainstream behavior—keep people out of prison. 

About half of prisoners have never married. And look at the power of education, a major component of social class.

 As I mentioned earlier, social class funnels some people into the criminal justice system while it diverts others away from it. 

You can see how people who drop out of high school have a high chance of ending up in prisonand how unlikely it is for a college graduate to have this unwelcome destination in life. 184 For about the past thirty years or so, the United States has followed a “get tough” policy. 

One of the most significant changes was “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws, which have had unintended consequences, as you will see in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life.

Thinking Critically about Social Life What Should We Do about Repeat Offenders? 

The “Three-Strikes” Laws In 1993, Polly Klaas, a 12-year old in Petaluma, California, had a sleepover at her home. 

A man on parole from rape slipped in, tied up the girls, put pillow cases over their heads, and took Polly. Two months later, her partially nude body was found in a wooded area (Callahan 2013).

 Back in the 1980s and 1990s, alarm and fear grew as violent crime soared. 

Amid outrage that violent criminals were being paroled from prison only to commit more violent crimes, the public demanded that “something be done.” 

Politicians, also outraged at the crimes of repeat offenders like the man who abducted, raped, and killed Polly Klaas, passed “three-strikes” laws: Anyone convicted of a third felony would receive a mandatory sentence. In California, the third felony meant twenty-five years to life. Delaware’s version requires a life sentence for anyone convicted of a third violent crime (Albright 2016). 

As intended, these laws have kept many repeat offenders off the street, but they also have had some unanticipated results: In California, a 64-year-old man who stole a package of cigarettes was sentenced to twenty-five-years-to-life in prison (Phillips 2013). 

Another California man, who passed a bad check for $94, was sentenced to twenty-five years to life (Jones 2008). 

In Florida, a man who stored cocaine in his girlfriend’s attic was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but his 27-year-old girlfriend, a mother of three, was sent to prison for life. 

The judge said the sentence was unjust, but since it was her third felony conviction he had no choice (Tierney 2012). 

In New York City, a man who was about to be sentenced for selling crack said to the judge, “I’m only 19. This is terrible.” 

He then hurled himself out of a courtroom window, plunging to his death sixteen stories below (Cloud 1998).

Sequoia, 11, Floyd, 8, and Deonta, 6, hold photos of their father, Floyd Earl, who is in prison for 25 years to life for theft. 

California voters had approved the three-strikes law amid public furor over the 1993 kidnap, rape, and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender on parole at the time.

 Credit: Damian Dovarganes/AP Images A sort of Oops! moment followed. 

This isn’t quite what was intended. 

The public had in mind someone who was convicted of violent crimes, such as a third brutal rape, being sent to prison for life. 

As in California, though, in some states the politicians neglected to limit the three-strikes to violent crimes.

 Judges complained that the three-strikes laws bound their hands, limiting them from taking into consideration the circumstances that surround a crime. 

With the longer sentences taking many repeat offenders off the street, though, the public felt relieved, and there was little rush to change these laws. 

Eventually, the gap between justice and unfair sentencing became too great to ignore, and the states are now softening their three-strikes laws. 

Not incidentally, a political consideration in the face of budget deficits is the huge costs of keeping offenders locked up. Each prisoner costs taxpayers an average of $36,000 a year (Notar 2019).

 For Your Consideration Apply the symbolic interactionist, functionalist, and conflict perspectives to the passage of the three-strikes laws and to their revision.

 → For symbolic interactionism, how does the meaning of these laws depend on social location, especially where someone is in the criminal justice system? 

→ For functionalism, what are some of the functions (benefits) of three-strikes laws? Their dysfunctions?

 → For the conflict perspective, which groups are in conflict? What different interests are represented, and who has the power to enforce their will on others?

The violation of norms (rules or expectations)

 Deviance

Discuss street crime and imprisonment, the three-strikes law, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

 Discuss street crime and imprisonment, the three-strikes law, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

6.6.0 Reactions to Deviance

 Reactions to Deviance 6.6 

Be able to discuss street crime and imprisonment, the three-strikes laws, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

 Whether it is cheating on a sociology quiz or holding up a liquor store, any violation of norms invites reaction. 

In the following Thinking Critically about Social Life, we will consider reactions to sexting, a controversial activity of many teenagers. 

After this we will turn to reactions to violent crimes.

Thinking Critically about Social Life 

Sexting: Getting on the Phone Isn’t What It Used to Be 

“How can we impress them?” wondered the eighth-grade girls at a sleepover. 

“They don’t even know we’re interested.”

 The girls came up with an idea. They took off their clothes, covered themselves with whipped cream, and sent pictures to boys of themselves licking it off. 

It seemed like a good idea at the time. But not the next day. 

As the girls walked to class, the boys stood around leering, laughing, and holding up the girls’ images on their cell phones. 

The boys who received the images had forwarded them to their friends—who forwarded them to their friends, and so on.

 And some photos were forwarded to the parents. As they say, that’s when all hell broke loose. If two people over the age of 18 send sexually explicit photos to one another, their sexting is a matter between the two. In contrast, those under the age of 18 are legally minors, and the law classifies their sexual photos as child pornography. The legal consequences can be severe. 

Both those who send the photos and those who pass them on to others have possessed child pornography. 

Anyone convicted of this offense will have to register as a sex offender—and this lasts for decades! 

“You’re getting excited about nothing,” is a common attitude of adolescents. 

“What’s the harm if we do this? 

Nude selfies don’t get anyone pregnant, and they don’t spread diseases.

 It’s a kind of safe sex.” (Sales 2016)

The law enforcers reply, “It’s not only stupid to show pictures of your genitals, but it’s also against the law.” 

The general consensus seems to be that the law needs to catch up with this social change, that child pornography laws should not apply to minors who sext. 

A developing sentiment is that educational programs are more appropriate, maybe even community service. Of course, we can’t overlook the more severe penalty—banning an offender from using cell phones for six months. 

Teenagers might be naïve, but they are far from stupid.

 Many skirt the legal problem by sexting via Snapchat. 

Poof! After being viewed, the photos vanish without leaving a trace.

Sexting can be fun. It can also be dangerous. 

If a photo is of an underage person, or sent to one, an individual can be convicted of a sexual offense against a child. 

This man, Anthony Weiner, sexted a 15-year-old girl.

 Weiner resigned from Congress, served 15 months of a 21-month sentence in a federal prison, spent a few weeks in a halfway house, and now must register as a sex offender. Credit: Monika Graff/The Image Works For 

Your Consideration

→ Do you think that sexting by minors should be a private matter, as it is for adults? Why or why not? 

→ If you think there should be sanctions for sexting by minors, which ones? 

Should the same sanctions apply for sexting at age 13 and age 17? For nudity and for the depiction of sexual intercourse?

How Serious is Sexting a Minor? Just Ask Anthony Weiner click the link https://blog.coxwelllaw.com/how-serious-is-sexting-a-minor-just-ask-anthony-welner/

6.5.2: The Criminal Justice System as an Instrument of Oppression

 6.5: The Conflict Perspective PT

 6.5.2: The Criminal Justice System as an Instrument of Oppression

 Conflict theorists regard power and social inequality as the main characteristics of society.

 The criminal justice system, they stress, is a tool designed by the powerful to maintain their power and privilege. 

For the poor, in contrast, the law is an instrument of oppression (Chambliss 2000; Pfaff 2017; Zalesne 2019).

 The idea that the law operates impartially to bring justice to all, they say, is a cultural myth promoted by the capitalist class to secure the cooperation of the poor in their own oppression.

 The working poor and those below them pose a special threat to the power elite. 

Receiving the least of society’s material rewards, they hold the potential to rebel and overthrow the current social order (see Figure 8.6 in Chapter 8). 

To prevent this, the law comes down hard on the poor and the underclass. 

They are the least rooted in society. They have only low-paying, part-time, or seasonal work—if they have jobs at all. Because their street crimes threaten the social order that keeps the elite in power, they are punished severely. From this class come most of the prison inmates in the United States. The criminal justice system, then, does not focus on the executives of corporations and the harm they do through manufacturing unsafe products, creating pollution, and manipulating prices. Yet the violations of the capitalist class cannot be ignored totally; if they become too extreme, they might outrage the working class, encouraging them to rise up and revolt. 

To prevent this, a flagrant violation by a member of the capitalist class is occasionally prosecuted. The publicity given to the case provides evidence of the “fairness” of the criminal justice system, which helps to stabilize the social system—and keeps the powerful in their positions of privilege.

The cartoonist’s hyperbole makes an excellent commentary on the social class disparity of our criminal justice system. 

Not only are the crimes of the wealthy less likely to come to the attention of authorities than the crimes of the poor, but when they do, the wealthy can afford legal expertise to wiggle around laws that the poor cannot. 

Credit: Leo Cullum/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank 

The powerful are usually able to bypass the courts altogether, appearing instead before an agency that has no power to imprison (such as the Federal Trade Commission). These agencies are directed by people from wealthy backgrounds who sympathize with the intricacies of the corporate world.

It is they who oversee most cases of price manipulation, insider stock trading, violations of fiduciary duty, and so on. 

Is it surprising, then, that the typical sanction for corporate crime is a token fine?

 In early capitalism, children worked alongside adults. 

At that time, just as today, most street criminals came from the marginal working class, as did these boys who worked in a glass works company in Indiana in 1908. 

Credit: Photo Researchers/Science History Images/Alamy Stock Photo In Sum Conflict theorists stress that the power elite developed the legal system to stabilize the social order. 

They use it to control the poor, who pose a threat to the powerful. 

The poor hold the potential of rebelling as a group, which could dislodge the power elite from their place of privilege. To prevent this, the criminal justice system makes certain that heavy penalties come down on the poor.