Paper on policy, how america is criminializing poverty - Essay Example

Criminalizing Poverty The issue of poverty in the United s is treated from a perspective of denial, with those of means unable to understand how anyone cannot succeed in a nation that is designed to provide opportunity. Poverty is a threat to the socially constructed theory of the American Dream, a notion that is in support of the ideals that were embraced when the United States was formed. Therefore, there is a pervasive belief that anyone who is impoverished must be a bad, lazy, or an undeserving person and therefore must be feared, loathed, or shunned.

The perceived threat and the connotations that are then imposed upon the homeless and the impoverished, lead to uncompassionate social responses to the issue. Within the United States there is a disturbing trend to criminalize poverty leaving those who have lost their financial stability, the mentally ill, and those addicted to chemical substances, vulnerable to criminal liabilities merely for seeking shelter, food, and hygienic health. In February of 2007 a debate began over groups who were feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park in Orlando Florida.

The larger crowds of homeless that resulted began a movement by legislators to find a solution. The fear and some of the realities of having a large group of people in desperate circumstances meant that violence and theft increased, thus creating a public problem that needed to be resolved, or so officials have claimed. Signs were already in existance in the park denying anyone from laying down on a bench or from bathing or doing laundry in the public restrooms. The park had become a place where it was illegal to exhibit signs of homelessness by trying to fulfill basic human needs.

The solution to the issue of charitable organizations going into the part and feeding the homeless who gathered there was to make it illegal to feed more than 25 people at any one time unless a permit was issued with a limit of two permits per year allowed (Associated Press). The problem with this solution is that in Orlando there are only 2,000 available beds in shelters with 8,500 homeless in need - and this information is from 2007 before the economy took a sharp dive leaving scores of people without their homes (Associated Press).

The problem with ignoring the facts is that it leaves this sort of gap between public need and public opinion. In 1976 and in 1980, President Ronald Reagan campaigned on the anecdotal ‘evidence’ of a Chicago ‘welfare queen’ who had bilked the system for a substantial amount of money. While many of his anecdotes were built upon false information, a problem his own advisors often lamented, his story captured the ire of conservatives and helped to shift public compassion away from those in need of social services (Karaagac 135).

However, the way in which the issue was approached was through making cuts in the budget without creating any meaningful solutions. Policy was not relevant, only cutting the amount of money allotted and the eligibility requirements for the system that was in place. Medicaid was cut by 5%, Aid to Families with Dependant Children was cut by 13% and child nutrition programs were cut by 28%. At the beginning of President Reagan’s term the national budget dedicated 28% to non-social security payments, but by the end of his term that was reduced to 21%.

Ironically, the defense budget was increased from 21% to 28%, despite the fact that there was no war being waged during that time (Karaagac 136). Building bombs was prioritized over feeding people during a time when a recession had devastated the country and increased the number of people in need. The attitude that was created during this time was far more devastating even than the cuts to social services. A shift was seen towards a less compassionate and charitable feeling of responsibility to those who could not, for whatever reason, take care of themselves, to a condemnation of ‘welfare queens’ stealing the hard earned money of the American taxpayer.

Suddenly, social problems were no longer the responsibility of the nation, but of the poor choices of the impoverished who deserved what they were experiencing. In the 1960s, there was a ‘War on Poverty’ social construct that intended to alleviate the burden of poverty, but in the 1980s the shift in public opinion created a war on the impoverished, targeting the people how suffered rather than the suffering (Handler and Hasenfeld 18). According to Handler and Hasenfled, one of the more important myths about poverty is that “poverty is a moral fault”, when many of the impoverished are hardworking people who are victims of the and that “ a major cause of poverty is structural, having to do with the characteristics of the labor market and with the rise of income inequality” (18).

Therefore, the result is a public that is ambivalent about the kind of services it provides. Sociologist Cynthia J. Bogard studied comparisons of public attitude about poverty in New York in comparison to Washington D. C. and discovered that symbolic action was sufficient to appease the public in creating a sense of compassion, even when policies had no real substantive relief to those in need. While legislation such as The Family Support Act of 1988 try to appear to be beneficial to those in need, in reality, the act serves to decrease services and restrict the welfare system from helping those with long term need (Schram 634).

Sociologist Harry Murray provides an example of how being poor can be criminalized through anti-fraud requirements that require a finger-image for recipients. The violation of privacy issue is forced upon those with little means to fight for their rights when physical needs of food and shelter override the assertion of rights. Refusal to participate in such a program will deny needed services to the recipient who cannot assert rights because of financial limitations. It is ironic that in the 19th century there were fears that democracy would provide for an equalization of income in such a way as to take from the rich, but history has determined that downward redistribution of wealth does not occur even in democratic societies (Murray 64).

Therefore, the plight of poverty will never be cured by a democratic redistribution of wealth due to the empowerment of the upper classes over the impotence of the lower classes as the upper class fights to retain all that it has over the needs of those with fewer resources. Providing food and shelter for those in need is not as difficult as it may seem. What it requires is providing dignity within the system and providing for the right to eat and sleep as an imperative. Creating systems intended to serve rather than with the concept of implied criminality will allow for higher levels of participation.

Creating a less antagonistic system will help to empower those who want to rise out of poverty. No one wants to live in an impoverished state, burdened by whatever cause has placed them in a state of shame. Many of those issues are health related. Therefore, providing health care so that those who are ill can be serviced in order to conduct their lives towards self sustainability will decrease the number of people in need. Shifting public opinion is a matter of promoting compassion as a socially and culturally important aspect of American life.

Through true service, the lower class can be elevated, thus providing overall improvement for the nature of life within the United States. Works Cited Associated Press. Debate Rages in Florida over Law Against Feeding the Homeless. Fox News. 3 February 2007. Web. 7 April 2011. Bogard, Cynthia J. Claimsmakers and Contexts in Early Constructions of Homelessness: A Comparison of New York City and Washington, D. C. Symbolic Interaction. 24.4 (2001): 425-454. Handler, Joel F, and Yeheskel Hasenfeld.

Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Karaagac, John. Between Promise and Policy: Ronald Reagan and Conservative Reformism. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Lexington Books, 2001. Print. Murray, Harry. Deniable Degradation: The Finger-Imaging of Welfare Recipients. Sociological Forum. 15.1 (March 2000): 39-63. Schram, Stanford F. Post-Positivist Policy Analysis & the Family Support Act of 1988: Symbols at the Expense of Substance. Polity. 24.4 (Summer 1992): 633-655.

Shapiro, Ian. Why the Poor Don’t Soak the Rich. On Inequality. 131.1 (Winter 2002): 118-128.