« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The tragedy of the prison-industrial complex
The drug war is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5itJNTIxm5C4IzpnZxP7ejMWxTl0Q?size=m
Marie Walsh, née Susan Lefevre, got into drugs after her sweetheart was killed in Vietnam in the 70s; she was sent to jail for 10-20 years, and managed to escape, moving to California and beginning a new life, with a new family, that would last 34 years, until an anonymous tip-off brought police attention to her. Now she and her family are basically screwed, because of a "mistake" she made decades ago, and despite the fact that she is the farthest thing from a menace to society.
UNCC history professor Heather Thompson recently gave a hell-raising talk at the Organization of American Historians conference in New York, during a panel about the legacy of 1968 radicalism. While some of the other older panelists had a rosy view of what the boomer lefties had accomplished, Thompson talked about some of the really bad shit that has happened in the last 40 years, especially with regard to the prison-industrial complex:
1. More and more people have been locked for nonviolent offenses, thanks to the hopeless war on drugs and "tough" mandatory minimum laws, which force judges to issue sentences for a defined period of time regardless of the circumstances of the case.
2. Felons have been stripped of their right to vote, which has disproportionately disenfranchised black men to a massive degree.
3. Corporations get to take advantage of cheap slave labor by contracting with prisons to manufacture goods, while prisoners get paid a measly amount of money for each day's work to buy candybars in the commisary; meanwhile, the labor movement is hamstrung by the use of this forced labor, which cannot organize to represent itself.
4. Private prison corporations get to cash in.
5. Voting districts with prisons get to count disenfranchised inmates as citizens for the sake of calculating their population and, thus, electoral influence.
And all of this is basically invisible to the average law-abiding, or even law-breaking, American citizens, except for the occasional episode of Oz or the prisonsploitation programming on MSNBC.
I sincerely believe that the drug war and the prison industrial complex are two of the most important issues that never, ever get discussed in political discourse. Candidates can't touch this stuff with a ten foot pole. I literally dragged a young black man to the polls in Philadelphia, after his mom and I both harangued him about the importance of voting. He just didn't believe that voting changed anything, and he didn't want to participate in the system. I wish I could have told him that Barack Obama would do something about police brutality or the drug war or the massive incarceration rates, but I couldn't. All I could say is that I thought he would put us on the right track toward solving those problems, if not taking them head-on.
We are all paying into a system that breeds violence and brutality for those poor souls who are trapped inside it, profits for unscrupulous corporations, and mushrooming expenses for the detainment of a massive number of American citizens. All for the sake of stopping someone from smoking a joint? Do we really want to throw a peddler of magic mushrooms in with rapists and murderers -- the sort of people society should be using its resources to separate from the rest of us?
What could we do with all the money that's poured into prisons? What would happen if all the incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders were out on the streets? I bet the unemployment figures would not be so artificially depressed as they always are.





Comments (11)
Akbar, I agree with much of what you've said here (except that prison labor is responsible for the "hamstrung" state of labor unions in this country -- employer-weighted labor laws have more to do with that than prison labor does).
Obama's community work on the South Side has to have sensitized him on this issue. I have no doubt that he'd be far more responsive than Clinton or McCain to this concern. But really. It's the last thing I want him to talk about during the campaign. There are a million other reasons, including economic sense, foreign-policy sanity, and racial justice, to support his candidacy without alienating a broad swath of the electorate. If he were to position himself as the candidate who would release black criminals from prison, he'd lose. Big. He is far too smart to do that. To get elected, he needs the votes of all Americans, including low-income black people and Latinos/as who live in high-crime neighborhoods and believe that more policing and longer prison terms might be part of the solution to the dangers they face every day. And people of all races and incomes who are afraid of "crime" and associate it with black people (but are willing to vote for Obama because he's "not like them"). Unfortunately, this is a huge swath of the electorate. Obama is the exceptional, brilliant candidate who can become the first black President. He's not gonna do it by campaigning against prisons.
I would love to see President Obama speak out and take action on this issue, as on same-sex marriage. After he's in the Oval Office. Not before.
May 1, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Undoubtedly so... I have no desire to see Obama embrace massively losing issues either... which is why I cross my fingers and hope that he'll do something good about Palestine and Israel, knowing that he can't go on the campaign trail and scream "Free Palestine" if he has any hopes of winning. All I meant to suggest is that, because of Willie Hortonism and various other cultural pathologies, the prison crisis is outside of the scope of legitimate political debate right now. Certainly, Obama is the candidate least able to talk about the social and racial injustice of the system because of his race, as evidenced so well by the snafu over Wright recently. Only Nixon can go to China, and only Clinton can kill welfare...
I too thought Thompson's point on the labor movement was a little tenuous. There are a million reasons why unions have had a tough time in the last forty years, and the prison system is just a tiny part of it. It is interesting to think about how convict labor influencing the whole picture, though; while manufacturing jobs have been moving abroad for decades, at least some part of the dwindling share of factory labor in the US is going to prisoners who are beyond the reach of unions.
May 1, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, by the way.
May 1, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the thoughtful post, Akbar. I hear ya, on hoping that Obama is secretly more lefty than there's any reason to believe he actually is. So do I. On the other hand, I have to assume that many voters hope that he's more righty we have any reason to believe he is. (I, for example, assume that he and Clinton are both pandering about NAFTA, and that they both realize they can't force Canada or Mexico to renegotiate. Better labor and environmental protections would be great -- I'd fully support that -- but protectionism would be much worse for the economy than free trade is.)
Certainly, Obama is the candidate least able to talk about the social and racial injustice of the system because of his race,
Except he's such a brilliant and principled politician that, even though he's the only black candidate in the race, he's been the only candidate who has spoken out against racism in America -- and he made a huge success of it.
May 1, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could not agree with this more. This article is not opinion at all: it is fact. Let's put Obama aside for a minute, and forget about what he can or can't talk about.
You both weighed in on this, very intelligently, very measured. I'm interested in this: what would it take for either of you to embrace radical leftist politics? Let me tell you that, for me, this is a case of "they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist..." I understand the value of pragmatism in politics. But I ask, how do you feel when you read one of these very factual assessments of our prison systems? Have you read the recent Pew study? 1 in 100 Americans now behind bars-- light years ahead of all other countries. Period. 1 in 9 black men between 20 and 34 years old are in prison?!?! Are you kidding me?!
So I'm asking, at what point would you support or advocate radical leftist politics? Would it be 1 in 7 blacks that would cause you to shift? Would you wait until it's 1 in 9 whites? What about 1 out of 2?
Here's where I am right now: release all blacks from prison right now, without exception. Without exception. Murder convictions, rape, arson, terrorism, poisoning Halloween cookies? I don't care. How can we possibly have faith in a justice system that is so clearly corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt as in prisons make money off of keeping slaves. Slaves. This is not hyperbole-- prison slave labor is a big business. 1 in 100 Americans are slaves.
May 1, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and it's not just based on race. While there is an overwhelming "oversampling"* of African-Americans in the prison population, it's also true that class is a major factor in determining both conviction rates and sentencing. Latinos are "oversampled." Whites from lower socioeconomic strata are "oversampled." Basically anyone who can't buy their way out gets in.
And yes, more and more it seems likely that being part of the wrong party can put you at risk for "oversampling": just ask Don Siegelman, right?
*this euphemism comes courtesy of a warden I met 15 years ago while researching prison demographics in KY. I've obviously never forgotten it. "Oversampling" in the prison population. Like they just called around, and those were the folks who happened to answer. "You wanna go to prison?" "Sure, why not." "Oh, oops. Looks like we got a slight oversample in your demographic. Gonna have to let you go."
May 1, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. I mean, as you indicated yourself, "oversampling" is a euphemism when we are dealing with things like slavery, a police state, disenfranchisement, etc. And yet we continue to come to conclusions like "we have to do a better job of making sure protections are in place so that we can mitigate the effects of incarceration, via public awareness, education, ....zzzzzz" We live in a police state. Our police state is the most policed in the world, by any measurement. This is not an opinion. I'd go even farther and say "oversampling" is not just a euphemism-- it is criminally negligent to characterize these facts in less than alarming terms, with less than a radical call for action. I'd be interested in any other tidbits you could share from that research.
May 1, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this what started me seeing the problem. I was in college, taking a sociology methods course. Somehow my partner and I decided we would work a quantitative analysis project around the local prison. So we went out there first to do some "qualitative research," i.e., fieldwork, i.e., hanging out at the prison. Then we dug through the statistical data about who was locked up there and in the KY state prison system as a whole.
Now, I went to a very small liberal arts school. Very small - all undergrad, private, about 1000 students. And it turned out that there were about 1000 people in the prison, too. While there were some old-timers, it was a "minimum to medium security" facility, so a lot of the guys were locked up for drug and property crimes, not major violent stuff like murder. And the weird part, the part that totally freaked me out and changed my head forever, was that the median age and average length of stay for the folks at the prison was pretty close to what it was for us at the college. I just never got over that.
I guess because I didn't come from a world where college was a given, and because my background was as close to a lot of those guys in the prison as it was to the people I went to college with. After having spent time at the prison, of course the people who lived there wouldn't just be "the prison population" to me. But I was really, really struck by how much their institutional life resembled mine, and by the key ways in which it was different. It just seemed very arbitrary to me how we ended up in our different places. I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that half of us made it into this "elite" liberal arts school where we got an amazing education and all kinds of opportunities, and half of us got locked up in a school for criminality. Based on what, exactly? Race, class, and a whole lot of luck-of-the-draw.
I know that there are elements of choice involved - I'm not going to deny that. But I also know, as someone who has been extremely lucky in ways that had nothing at all to do with choices I made, that there's a lot more to the picture than simply what any of us "chooses" to do with our lives. It's not simple. A single screw-up can literally cost you your life, if you happen to come from the wrong background, happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, happen to get the wrong judge or jury or jurisdiction. And if you're lucky, you never have to deal with any of that, even though you might participate in the same exact activities.
May 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing this. You might find this funny... a long time ago I wrote a song called "I Want To Date A Tranny Girl" about the differences between UK and "the other school" down the street.
May 1, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha! I find that hysterical. I had several friends who were "Tranny girls," tho I don't know why we didn't think to call them that at the time. What a precious opportunity wasted!
I was a Centre girl myself - all sorts of material for ridicule there, too, but maybe less on the faux Brit name and more on the cut of our jib.
(I have no idea what a "jib" is, so I'm not even sure if girls have them. I suppose if they don't, but we did, then Centre girls might be tranny girls, too. If you know what I mean. I don't.)
May 5, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's our length of incarceration that is most out of step with the rest of the world. Obama knows. I forget what the specific legislative proposal was, but he was on the right side of it.
Sucks that this is a loser issue, but it's not hopeless. There are some fairly readily available remedies that don't involve being "soft on crime" ... and shortening sentences seems like the most obvious low-hanging fruit we should grab. Or not. I'm just spouting off after reading about this in my Economist ... goodness, if we don't look like barbarians on this issue.
May 1, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment