The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

These awful public policies are inviting targets for electoral and other
mobilizations in black communities and beyond.
The fact that America does implement a public policy of racially selective
mass imprisonment is well documented and beyond dispute. With under 5
percent of the world¹s people, the US accounts for 25 percent of the
planet¹s prisoners. More than half its 2.2 million prisoners come from the
one eighth of its population which is black. Today, an astounding 3 percent
of all African Americans languish in prisons and jails, and nearly as many
more are on probation, parole, bail, house arrest or court supervision.
Tens of thousands of jobless, skill-less, often anti-socialized inmates are
released into black communities each month in which jobs, medical care,
educational opportunities and family or official support are almost
completely absent. Unsurprisingly, many are back behind the walls in a
matter of months. Right now, the shadow of prison squats at the corners of,
and often at the center of nearly every black family¹s life in this nation.
Since 1970, the US prison population has multiplied more than six times.
The explosive growth of America's incarceration and crime control industries
have occurred despite essentially level crime rates over the last four
decades. This has only been possible because the public policies which
enable and support locking up more people longer and for less have until now
been exempt from analyses of their human, economic and social costs or any
reckoning of the relationships of spiraling imprisonment to actual crime
rates or public safety. Most tellingly, while public discussions of these
policies are deracialized, their racially disparate impacts are a seldom
discussed but widely known fact. Thus even though the damning numbers are
widely reported and well known, mass incarceration is practically invisible
as a political issue, even in those heavily black communities which suffer
most from its implementation.
Making mass incarceration a political issue
In the absence of an independent, adversarial press, which might be willing
to raise issues on its own and educate the public, US political discourse is
limited to what officeholders and candidates say and what the media chooses
to report about what they say. As long as no candidate or official can be
heard calling for a moratorium on the prosecution of juveniles as adults, it
is a non-issue. If no candidate or official is cited in the media
advocating the extension of health care, job and educational opportunities
or the rights of citizenship to the prisoner class such proposals are
absolutely off the table. And unless some candidates or officials somehow
get ink or air time publicly questioning the economic and social effects of
mass incarceration on children, on families, on whole communities, these
concerns remain politically invisible.
The fact that sizeable chunks of the population, including likely majorities
in constituencies with large numbers of African Americans might support
radical reforms of America¹s racially skewed policing, prosecutorial and
sentencing practices, if anybody would ask them, is irrelevant. The
establishment political consensus and media lockdown assure that no section
of the public will ever be asked such questions, and hence will never know
how widely shared their own views on the clear injustice of these policies
are.
If we are to build a mass movement in opposition to America¹s crime control
and prison industries, we must succeed in putting the facts of racially
selective mass incarceration, impoverishment and criminalization, first, in
front of our African American communities, and then before the whole of
America, and do so effectively, persuasively, consistently and persistently.
America must be forced to publicly unpack and examine the myths that have
justified its incarceration binge. An indispensable tactic in this struggle
must be the mounting of competent, effective campaigns for elected office
which directly question the unfairness, along with the social and human
costs of these policies, political campaigns which propose radical and
understandable measures to shrink the ³crime control² and prison industries
rather than expand them, and to ameliorate some of the harm already done to
families and communities.
A short list of such down-to-earth public policy proposals might include,
but not be limited to the following:
A moratorium on the prosecution of juveniles as adults, and the confinement
of juveniles in facilities with adult inmates.
A moratorium on all privatization of prisons and jails, including piecemeal
privatizations of such services as inmate feeding, medical care and
probation.
Repeal or sunset of all ³two-strikes², ³three strikes² and indeterminate
sentencing legislation.
The imposition of mandatory ethnic and racial impact statements for all
future prison construction and sentencing legislation, with a period set for
mandatory review comparing the statement at outset with the results no less
than four years out.
Elimination of sentencing disparities between powdered cocaine and crack.
End felony disenfranchisement in those states where it exists, perhaps with
a constitutional amendment guaranteeing voting as a right.
Repeal of legislation banning Pell Grants to convicted felons and inmates,
and require states to offer college credit courses to inmates who have
completed their GED or the equivalent.
Refocus parole systems upon the re-entry and productive reintegration of
former prisoners into society rather than re-imprisonment.
Civilian review boards with teeth to oversee police and prosecutorial
practices.
Explicit commitments to reduce and eliminate disparities in prosecution and
imprisonment.
Over the next several months we should refine and expand the list of policy
positions that campaigns must incorporate if they expect the support of a
mass movement to end the nation¹s policy of racially selective imprisonment.
Organic connections between electoral campaigns and mass movements
In BC¹s June 30, 2005 issue we described some of the essential
characteristics of mass movements, progressive and otherwise:
³Politicians are elected and selected, but mass movements transform
societies. Judges uphold, strike down, or invent brand new law, but mass
movements drag the courts, laws and officeholders all in their wake.
Progressive and even partially successful mass movements can alter the
political calculus for decades to come, thus improving the lives of
millionsŠ.
²Mass movements exist outside electoral politics, and outside the law, or
they don¹t exist at all. Mass movements are never respecters of law and
order. How can they be? A mass movement is an assertion of popular
leadership by the people themselves. A mass movement aims to persuade
courts, politicians and other actors to tail behind it, not the other way
around. ²
There are already many serious people in our communities involved in
churches and voluntary organizations that try their best to offer services
to the families of inmates, that lobby and agitate against drug and
incarceration policies, that attempt to offer counseling and re-entry
services to those emerging from our state and federal gulag. An electoral
campaign and a mass movement is an unparalleled opportunity for grandmothers
in church-sponsored re-entry programs to work with unchurched young people
who know that they, their siblings and classmates are destined to be fodder
for the imprisonment industry if things don¹t turn around. If that isn¹t a
formula that can feed a mass movement, no such thing exists. Electoral
campaigns conducted against the crime control industry are an indispensable
tool in extending a movement¹s outreach.
Still, we must not allow ourselves to become confused about the differences
between a mass movement to change America's policy of selective policing and
racist incarceration, and an electoral campaign, even ones that succeed in
putting the issue of mass imprisonment at its center. Unlike a mass
movement, a political campaign is a decorous, time-limited legal exercise.
We must know that political campaigns have often heralded the demobilization
of a mass movement, even when that movement¹s objectives have not been met.
Being able to use electoral campaigns to advance the agenda of a mass
movement demands prior preparation and steadfast resolve, lest the candidate
before or after election stray from within the bright lines of opposing the
incarceration of juveniles as adults, or demanding racial and ethnic impact
statements and evaluation for sentencing legislation, to use two of several
possible examples.
The culture of campaigns and officialdom as practiced in America today makes
officeholders unaccountable to anyone except corporate cash and corporate
media. Hence it is suicidal for the leaders of local movements to wait for
candidates to emerge and then decide which if any to support. Candidates
that surface without the help of a movement against mass incarceration will
have intended all along to run whether such a movement existed or not, and
should hence be shunned. Local ³movement leaders,² forced to choose among
such a crop, will inevitably choose the ³least worst² candidate, who will
offer only tepid support to a movement¹s ³bright line² issues and will not
advance the cause of de-legitimizing our nation¹s racially skewed crime
control industry at all.
To guarantee that political campaigns endorsed by the movement do indeed
advance the cause, over the individual fortunes and pressures to which
candidates are prey, we must set up local, statewide and even regional
screening committees to recruit and interview suitable candidates for
office, and to facilitate the channeling of funds and campaign expertise to
those who pledge to stay within the bright lines and place the issue of mass
incarceration squarely at the center of their campaigns. A national PAC
whose sole purpose is funding movement-vetted candidates running against
mass imprisonment ­ and other ³bright line issues ­ should be one of the
outcomes of our next national dialogue, now commonly referred to as ³going
back to Gary.² The gathering will occur in the first quarter of next year.
Candidates who run against the crime control industry and racist mass
imprisonment will certainly need all the help they can get. Although they
are likely to receive surprising support and attract tons of youthful talent
and enthusiasm in our base communities, they will face formidable odds
getting their message out through an indifferent or hostile media.
Time-tested best practices like accountable voter registration drives,
accurate phone and door to door canvasses in base areas, and competent
Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) practices will have to be combined with newer
innovations to circumvent the monopoly that corporate media have on access
to the American public, including the black public. BC will explore the
impact of some of these new media tactics and tools in an upcoming article.
Targeting local prosecutors and sheriffs
Federal prosecutors are presidential appointees. But the state level
gatekeepers for the prison industry¹s stream of human raw material are local
prosecutors ­ elected officials who must run for office at the level of
counties, cities and judicial circuits. A number of these jurisdictions
have black majorities. The local politicians with responsibility for
housing pre-trial inmates are usually elected county officials too:
sheriffs.
The table below, which arranges the list of US counties to show those with
the top 130 black populations, shows a target-rich environment, with fully
37 jurisdictions having African American population percentages of 30% or
greater. Every major city in the state of Georgia, for instance, is on the
list, including 3 of the 4 largest counties in metro Atlanta. And you don¹t
need a black majority to run against mass imprisonment and win. A black
prosecutor ran against the Rockefeller drug laws in Albany NY, where African
Americans are a distinct minority ­ and won.
Counties by Black Population
County NameStateTotal County PopulationTotal Black PopulationPercent
Cook CountyIL5,376,7411,405,36126.1
Los Angeles CountyCA9,519,338930,9579.8
Kings CountyNY2,465,326898,35036.4
Wayne CountyMI2,061,162868,99242.2
Philadelphia CountyPA1,517,550655,82443.2
Harris CountyTX3,400,578628,61918.5
Prince George's CountyMD801,515502,55062.7
Bronx CountyNY1,332,650475,00735.6
Miami-Dade CountyFL2,253,362457,21420.3
Dallas CountyTX2,218,899450,55720.3
Queens CountyNY2,229,379446,18920
Shelby CountyTN897,472435,82448.6
Baltimore cityMD651,154418,95164.3
Cuyahoga CountyOH1,393,978382,63427.4
Fulton County GA816,006363,65644.6
DeKalb CountyGA665,865361,11154.2
District of ColumbiaDC572,059343,31260
Broward CountyFL1,623,018333,30420.5
Essex CountyNJ793,633327,32441.2
Orleans ParishLA484,674325,94767.3
New York County NY1,537,195267,30217.4
Jefferson CountyAL662,047260,60839.4
Milwaukee CountyWI940,164231,15724.6
Duval CountyFL778,879216,78027.8
Alameda CountyCA1,443,741215,59814.9
Marion CountyIN860,454207,96424.2
Hamilton CountyOH845,303198,06123.4
Mecklenburg CountyNC695,454193,83827.9
St. Louis CountyMO1,016,315193,30619
Franklin CountyOH1,068,978191,19617.9
Tarrant CountyTX1,446,219185,14312.8
St. Louis cityMO348,189178,26651.2
East Baton Rouge ParishLA412,852165,52640.1
Orange CountyFL896,344162,89918.2
San Diego CountyCA2,813,833161,4805.7
Allegheny CountyPA1,281,666159,05812.4
Palm Beach CountyFL1,131,184156,05513.8
San Bernardino CountyCA1,709,434155,3489.1
Suffolk CountyMA689,807153,41822.2
Hinds CountyMS250,800153,29761.1
Jackson CountyMO654,880152,39123.3
Baltimore CountyMD754,292151,60020.1
Hillsborough CountyFL998,948149,42315
Davidson CountyTN569,891147,69625.9
Richland CountySC320,677144,80945.2
Nassau CountyNY1,334,544134,67310.1
Mobile CountyAL399,843133,46533.4
Montgomery CountyMD873,341132,25615.1
Westchester CountyNY923,459131,13214.2
Jefferson CountyKY693,604130,92818.9
Clark CountyNV1,375,765124,8859.1
Wake CountyNC627,846123,82019.7
Erie CountyNY950,265123,52913
Guilford CountyNC421,048123,25329.3
Lake CountyIN484,564122,72325.3
Clayton CountyGA236,517121,92751.6
Sacramento CountyCA1,223,499121,80410
Oakland CountyMI1,194,156120,72010.1
Pulaski CountyAR361,474115,19731.9
Maricopa CountyAZ3,072,149114,5513.7
Cobb CountyGA607,751114,23318.8
Richmond cityVA197,790113,10857.2
Caddo ParishLA252,161112,48344.6
Montgomery CountyOH559,062111,03019.9
Union CountyNJ522,541108,59320.8
Montgomery CountyAL223,510108,58348.6
Charleston CountySC309,969106,91834.5
Cumberland CountyNC302,963105,73134.9
Jefferson ParishLA455,466104,12122.9
Norfolk cityVA234,403103,38744.1
New Castle CountyDE500,265101,16720.2
Monroe CountyNY735,343101,07813.7
Bexar CountyTX1,392,931100,0257.2
Hennepin CountyMN1,116,20099,9439
Hartford CountyCT857,18399,93611.7
Richmond CountyGA199,77599,39149.8
Oklahoma CountyOK660,44899,24115
Suffolk CountyNY1,419,36998,5536.9
Riverside CountyCA1,545,38796,4216.2
Chatham CountyGA232,04893,97140.5
King CountyWA1,737,03493,8755.4
New Haven CountyCT824,00893,23911.3
Camden CountyNJ508,93292,05918.1
Genesee CountyMI436,14188,84320.4
Contra Costa CountyCA948,81688,8139.4
Fairfield CountyCT882,56788,36210
Durham CountyNC223,31488,10939.5
Jefferson CountyTX252,05185,04633.7
Fairfax CountyVA969,74983,0988.6
Pinellas CountyFL921,48282,5569
Hudson CountyNJ608,97582,09813.5
Muscogee CountyGA186,29181,48843.7
Virginia Beach cityVA425,25780,59319
Delaware CountyPA550,86479,98114.5
Forsyth CountyNC306,06778,38825.6
Gwinnett CountyGA588,44878,22413.3
Lucas CountyOH455,05477,26817
Travis CountyTX812,28075,2479.3
St. Clair CountyIL256,08273,66628.8
Bibb CountyGA153,88772,81847.3
Summit CountyOH542,89971,60813.2
Newport News cityVA180,15070,38839.1
Fort Bend CountyTX354,45270,35619.8
Leon CountyFL239,45269,70429.1
Mercer CountyNJ350,76169,50219.8
Greenville CountySC379,61669,45518.3
Middlesex CountyNJ750,16268,4679.1
Anne Arundel CountyMD489,65666,42813.6
Polk CountyFL483,92465,54513.5
Hampton cityVA146,43765,42844.7
Henrico CountyVA262,30064,80524.7
Passaic CountyNJ489,04964,64713.2
Burlington CountyNJ423,39464,07115.1
Madison CountyAL276,70063,02522.8
Escambia CountyFL294,41063,01021.4
Hamilton CountyTN307,89662,00520.1
Tulsa CountyOK563,29961,65610.9
Denver CountyCO554,63661,64911.1
San Francisco CountyCA776,73360,5157.8
Solano CountyCA394,54258,82714.9
Dougherty CountyGA96,06557,76260.1
Chesapeake cityVA199,18456,82328.5
Montgomery CountyPA750,09755,9697.5
Orangeburg CountySC91,58255,73660.9
Douglas CountyNE463,58553,33011.5
Spartanburg CountySC253,79152,77520.8
Prince William CountyVA280,81352,69118.8
Will CountyIL502,26652,50910.5
Kent CountyMI574,33551,2878.9
Portsmouth cityVA100,56550,89950.6

Unpacking the myths around the crime control industry
Crime control policies on every level in the U.S. are based upon racist
myths. Myths are powerful because they are never questioned, never
examined, never unpacked. Nobody disputes that Justice Department data
going back decades shows rates of drug use among blacks and whites to be
about the same. A combination of white racism and a willingness to ignore
unpleasant facts largely account for white indifference at the disparity
between white and black rates of arrest and prosecution for offenses created
with equal frequency by both groups. But black support for an industry and
for public policies that criminalize a third of all young black men, which
disrupt and retard the formation of strong families, and cripple workforce
and educational opportunities for such a broad cross section of us, is at
best ambivalent and at worst paper-thin, even among African Americans
working in the industry, based as it is upon a tenuous mass acceptance that
this is all somehow part of the normal balance of society.
³It¹s hot in the summer,² we tell ourselves, ³it¹s cold in the winter, and a
third of all young black men are in and out of jail.² Or we say ³It¹s a
trap! It was out there waitin¹ for them and they fell in it!² Both these
positions are understandable as mental adjustments much like those that some
of our forbears thought they had to make to get along in the world of
triumphant Jim Crow and white terror eighty or a hundred years ago. Such
views are uncomfortable for the black people that hold them, and unstable.
We must engage them by depicting mass incarceration not as the way normal
societies behave, but as a failed experiment that punishes our entire
community, a malevolent social policy that can be challenged and must be
changed.
Our language must be carefully constructed to aid in the process of
demythologizing crime and crime control policies. We need new terminology,
new language that better enables people to grasp the issues around mass
imprisonment and the criminal justice industry as malevolent social policies
which can be changed, rather than unalterable facts like cold in the winter
and heat in the summer. For example, the terms ³criminal justice system²
and ³corrections² ought to be replaced in all our dialogue with terms like
³crime control industry², or ³imprisonment industry.² A ³system² is a very
generalized term that does not tell us much, while an ³industry² is a very
specific kind of system. To call it an ³industry² instead raises powerful
questions of profit and accountability which are obscured when we call it
anything else.
White establishment pundits and politicians of a generation ago warned us.
They predicted the coming of what they called a ³white backlash.² This was
their name for a predicted white racist response to the just demands of
African America for equality of opportunity and economic justice advanced by
the movement of the 1960s, a response some feared would entrench racial
inequality and privilege deeper than ever before. They were right.
Beginning in the 1970s the selective mass imprisonment of African Americans
helped to swell the six or sevenfold expansion of the prison population.
And while the rhetoric and official policies that enabled this were
ostensibly race-neutral, the results were an open secret. Around the same
time, Dr. King was saying that the movement which would save the nation¹s
soul would have to emerge from black America. He was right too.
The struggle to de-legitimize the racist crime control and prison industries
are at the heart of this generation's struggle to de-legitimize racism
itself. America¹s policies of racially selective policing, prosecution and
imprisonment are the first target for a mass movement which must emerge from
our communities, but which must not be confined to them. Laying the
intelligent groundwork for such a movement remains the task before us, when
we go back to Gary.