| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Incarceration and Self-Interest in America | >
> | Vested Interests and the Perpetuation of American Aristocracy: Capitalism, the Courts, and Criminal Justice | | | | |
<
< | -- By WyattLittles - 25 Feb 2013 | | | | |
>
> | Capitalism and It's Consequences | | | | |
<
< | Punishment and Capitalism: Problem and Solution
With only 5% of the world’s population, and 25% of the world’s prisoners, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. To a capitalist, these figures may seem insignificant, until they are substantiated by the body of evidence demonstrating the deleterious effect that the nation’s failing criminal justice system has on the economy as a whole. This country not only locks up more individuals annually than other country in the world, but also has the highest costs of incarceration. $63.4 billion a year is spent on maintaining the nation's correctional facilities and programs, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. | >
> | While touted as a democracy, America is functionally an aristocracy. To preserve this socioeconomic hierarchy, America employs capitalism and the criminal justice system as tools to combat an equitable allocation of resources and the end of segregation. The American criminal justice system, generally made up of the law enforcement officials, prosecutors and the courts, and the prison system, is as effective at controlling minority and poor populations, as the “free-market” is at perpetuating socioeconomic hierarchy within the country. With only 5% of the world’s population, and 25% of the world’s prisoners, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, along with the highest costs of incarceration, at $63.4 billion annually (Bureau of Justice Statistics). When the costs of courts and various police forces are added, the total adds up to $147 billion a year. This country also has one of the largest “wealth gaps”, or unequal distribution of assets among residents, as compared to other developed countries. In America, the richest 1% of the population take home almost a quarter of the nation’s income, a drastic change from the 9% figure that they took home in 1996, http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM. | | | | |
>
> | These figures demonstrate the irony in America’s claim as the home of the “free”. This freedom is merely a token nomenclature to justify the unrestricted pursuit of self-interest. Nowhere is this principle more evident than in the free market system. It is no coincidence therefore, that the incarceration figures mirrors this nation’s wealth distribution, as the top 20% of the nation owns over 80% of the wealth, while the bottom 20%, make up close to three quarters of prison population, with an overwhelming majority of inmates being black or Latino. Capitalism is socioeconomic segregation’s greatest ally, as it is a subtle way of depriving groups the access to resources necessary to realize the fruits of “freedom”. As stated in Gatson County v. United States, America has “systematically deprived its black citizens of the (educational) opportunities it granted to its white citizens . . . therefore it should be no surprise that ‘Impartial’ administration of criminal laws, penalties, and the privilege of freedom, when employed in real time serve only to perpetuate inequality.” | | | | |
<
< | There are numerous principles for which American’s prescribe to justify their beliefs and behaviors. While it is claimed that America is the home of the “free”, this freedom is merely a token nomenclature to justify the unrestricted pursuit of self-interest. Nowhere is this principle more evident than in the system of Capitalism. Supporters of the capitalist system argue that as a framework, when the proper analysis is applied, it has the ability to solve modern day problems. Therefore, it stands to reason that the principles of capitalism should be applied to cure America’s current incarceration epidemic, either with Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce or through economic measures. | >
> | In the aristocracy that is America, one must look no further than the free market to find the cause of widespread minority jailing. Similar to the taxes citizens are willing to pay for highways, the postal service, the standing military, and other public services, those with resources are willing to pay the costs of incarceration as a means of controlling poor and minority populations. As opposed to a system rooted in rehabilitation, rooted in the principle that “all men are created equal”, where offenders pay their debts to society before being discharged back into society, the American criminal justice system uses retribution and incapacitation, as an ends to controlling the poor through suffering and immobilization, glossed over in the rhetoric “deterrence” and “public safety”. While $147 billion a year sounds substantial, the benefits provided to those fortunate enough to stay out of the system are significant. The criminal justice system effectively buys goods and services necessary to operate prisons in the private market, provides employment to corrections officers, law enforcement, prison industries workers, and large profits to private construction and other service providers. These figures demonstrate that the old adage “crime pays” is especially pertinent for those profiting off of the incapacitation of the “dangerous” members of society. With these types of vested interests working to maintain mass incarceration, turning to the free market will only exacerbate the damaging effects that the criminal justice has on poor and minority communities. | | | | |
>
> | Courts as Preservers of Hierarchy | | | | |
<
< | Principles of Punishment & Putting Commerce to Work | >
> | For their purposes, the criminal justice system is incredibly efficient; prosecutors and police officers target which citizens are deserving of punishment, while judges work to secure the convictions. All of these actions are then sanctioned and reaffirmed by decisions of the courts, with appellate courts acting as the ultimate preserver of hierarchy and the status quo. The days of Congress using, and the courts recognizing, the commerce clause, legislation, or other federal means to dismantle social ails such as discrimination, see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, are long gone. At current, courts are more likely to strike down laws aimed at increasing equality as unconstitutional rather than support their efforts. | | | | |
>
> | Over time the court has gradually rescinded on it’s effort to end segregation and the incidents of slavery following Brown v. Board. Given the gross disparity in wealth in this country along racial lines however, this fact is damming for poor and minority populations. Per Justice Marshall’s dissent in Bakke, “ the racism of our society has been so pervasive that none (Negroes), regardless of wealth or position, has managed to escape its impact”. While clearly invidious decisions are outlawed, courts justify disparate treatment of the poor on the basis of segregation that is “de facto” as opposed to “de jure”. This principle has been sanctioned by the nation’s highest court when ruling on cases affecting the distribution of resources, notwithstanding that the effects of “de facto” segregation can be more damaging than “de jure” segregation, because it is unspoken and can more easily go unchecked. In Washington v. Davis (1976), the Court ruled that proof of disproportionate impact was not enough, standing alone, to ground a finding that a law amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. Later in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) the Court held that school plans that use race alone as qualifying criterion for school assignments is unconstitutional, even where efforts are aimed at combating “de facto” segregation or remnants of previous inequity. The court and the free market, once symbols of equality now act as a devastating force against it. The criminal justice system and capitalism have effectively commodified freedom, turning what was once believed to be inalienable into a luxury to be purchased by the privileged. | | | | |
<
< | To both cut the costs of imprisonment and net a possible profit from incarceration, the current system must be drastically altered. Fundamentally, criminal law is meant to regulate social conduct that endangers the health and safety of the general public through punishment for those who break laws. It is argued that there are generally five objectives that criminal law advances, retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. In theory, criminal law achieves most of these objectives. However, the fundamental flaw in the American system is the focus on incapacitation at the expense of rehabilitation. From a capitalist perspective, the incapacitated violator is substantially less productive than the rehabilitated violator. This is especially significant given that it currently costs over $47,000 a year to house each inmate. The insignificant return on these costs is contradictory both from an economic and rehabilitative standpoint. | | | | |
<
< |
But $64 billion a year is not a very substantial underclass control budget. It buys goods and services in the private market, as well as providing employment to corrections officers and other prison control workers. It also provides captive employees to prison industries. The $trillions spent in the last fifty years building prisons provided immense income to private construction companies and other providers of private corrections goods and services. The system is far more profitable to capitalism than two million additional, mostly "low-quality" workers would be if they weren't incarcerated.
The problem with your analysis isn't in the details. It's fundamental: our incarceration system has been shaped by, and has most recently exploded in size under the ministrations of, American capitalism. It's design, its fabric, and its role in US social and economic policy, is the outcome of the market's effect. Why are you surprised that the transition from democracy to aristocracy in the US, which occurred during my lifetime and almost altogether within yours, was accompanied by a vast expansion of the prison system, occurring in my lifetime and almost altogether within yours? As an aristocracy, the US needs prisons, and, also as an aristocracy, it divides the winnings of the system unequally. But winnings, both economic and social, there quite definitely are. The American ruling class, the 1% who own roughly half of everything, are able to incapacitate the most dangerous members of the underclass, at public expense, and they earn a fortune doing it.
Similar to the role that economics played in the Civil Rights movement, in preventing businesses from discriminating against black customers when it began to affect interstate commerce, see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, American history has demonstrated, that the effects of racial bias and discriminatory animus can be partially mitigated when this behavior becomes particularly “bad for business”. The same way that Congress was able to pass and enforce many of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, relying on the Commerce Clause, similar steps should be taken, appealing to the maxims of capitalism to address the issue of incarceration in America. In a down economy, programs implemented, which could cut into the incarceration burden, would ultimately benefit the aggregate. Being a nation so invested on the capitalism doctrine, economics should lead the charge to incite change.
From an economic standpoint, mandatory and disproportionate sentencing should be repealed under the commerce clause. While stringent mandatory sentencing requirements may increase judicial efficiency, they not only create significant due process concerns, but also affect the national economy. Similar to the line of reasoning employed by the government in NFIB v. Sebelius regarding the affect that the uninsured have on the national economy, increasing the time violators must be imprisoned, when combined with a lack of proper rehabilitation and preparation for a return to civilian life, create a cycle of recidivism. In the aggregate, this cycle ultimately works to increase the number of tax dollars spent on housing criminals and has significant implications for interstate commerce.
Realities and Practicality of Change
If a prisoner has no opportunity to return to the civilian world, what is the point of wasting resources on keeping them alive? While some would make the argument that life sentences are more “humane” than capital punishment, the ends are essentially the same. A more economic use of this human capital would be to transform these violators into productive individuals. To use the example of violators sentenced to life without parole, the incentive to be productive decreases significantly where there are limited prospects for release. Prisoners do not stop being human merely because they are imprisoned.
But the system didn't treat them as fully, equally human starting long before it put them in prison.
One of the main tenants of capitalism and free trade is the notion that individuals will naturally work to pursue their self-interest. When incentives are lost, so is productivity. Therefore if a system implemented a correlation between a violator’s productivity and his time remaining to serve, there would be greater returns on the investment. The current system of paying people to sit on timeout is an ineffective means of both rehabilitation and re-entry into civilization.
While there have been efforts to create greater “exit” or career training for freed violators, the full range of these benefits cannot be enjoyed unless they are further reaching and the lengths of sentences are reduced. These programs must be combined with an elimination of “life sentences”, mandatory sentencing, and greater protection for violators returning to the public. Career training for violators is a positive alternative to the current system, given the net profit that these programs could ultimately garner, in terms of the number of productive individuals created. When accounting for the total costs of preparing violators for viable careers following their release, the analysis must take into account both the costs of housing violators and the opportunity costs, i.e. what these individuals could add to the economy were they not incarcerated. Educating inmates for careers at a basic community college or associates degree level for example would be one step in the right direction. The average costs of an associates degree at current is between $25,000 and $30,000 according to Kaplan University, less than what tax payers currently pay to merely “house” and not rehabilitate violators. Capitalists would clearly be against paying people to be on “time out”, while there is a more productive use of both the human capital and monetary investment.
One of the changes from a democracy to an aristocracy in the United States lay specifically in shifting emphasis in the enforcement of the criminal law. A democracy is interested in rehabilitation: people are equal, the offender pays "his debt to society," and he is discharged back into a condition of equality. An aristocracy is interested in retribution and incapacitation: it controls the poor through imposition of pain and immobilization. It advertises its power to keep the people safe, whether in feudal bargains for protection or in the "deterrent" force of its punitive system.
In order to improve the next draft, it seems to me, the underlying
thesis has to be reconsidered. I'm not sure whether the word
"capitalism" is helpful to you. In context, it seems to imply an
effort to use an external (probably Marxian) analysis. Capitalism
tends to call itself "the free market," or something like that.
In the event, your analysis is anything but Marxian; there is
indeed not even so much class-consciousness in it as there is in
Aristotle's Politics. You don't have to be inclined to such an
analysis yourself, but you need at least to consider its
conclusions and respond to the evidence on which it reaches them.
In this respect, as I say, it seems to me that you are treating
the system of incarceration we have presently as though it were
part of a democratic social system under which we do not live.
The actual economic incentives, as well as the actual cultural
attitudes, presently in existence are those characteristic of an
aristocratic society with a very small ruling class with highly
concentrated ownership and low social mobility. The system of
"corrections" which we have is characteristic of such an
aristocratic social system, though it is strongly tempered by
constitutional limitations and occasionally banefully "reformed"
by the whimsical dynamics of electoral democracy.
If you think the evidence bears a different interpretation, you
should help the reader to see the evidence and draw the better
inferences. | | |
|
|