Existing Inequalities and Segregation in the UK and the USA - Research Paper Example

To what extent does the current use of imprisonment as crime control reinforce existing inequalities and segregation in the UK and the USA Introduction Traditionally imprisonment has been used – along with other crime prevention/ punishment measures - in order to control crime within a specific region. However, the terms under which the specific policy has being applied around the world have not been quite clear up to now. In any case, mass imprisonment has been found to be related with specific social ‘characteristics, like the unemployment, gender and race. Current paper focuses on the potential effects of imprisonment on enforcement of inequalities and segregation in two specific countries: Britain and USA. Through the examination of the relevant literature and empirical research it has been proved that imprisonment can reinforce existing social inequalities related with the gender, the race and the employment status of individuals. On the other hand, despite the fact that a series of measures have been taken by the British and the USA government regarding the improvement of the terms of mass imprisonment, still the specific measure enforces inequalities among the population. It could be stated that the terms of mass imprisonment that are currently applied present many similarities with the ones used in the past. In accordance with Hallett (2002) ‘due to late 20th-century imprisonment policies, a renewed understanding of prisoners as commodities has emerged; the historical pattern of racially distinct commerce in imprisoned human beings, most of whom are poor, non-violent, minority offenders, has returned’ (Hallett, 2002, 369). The terms of mass imprisonment applied today would be improved so that inequalities are no longer enforced; but this target is a challenging task – especially if taking into account the resources (employees, funds, and technology) required. The development of technology in the developed countries around the world – including the USA and the UK – has not necessarily led to the improvement of the terms of justice or the limitation of inequalities in the society. The above fact is clear through the studies and the findings presented below. 2. Current use of imprisonment as crime control and reinforcing of existing inequalities and segregation in the UK and the USA Inequality can lead to severe social turbulences. In accordance with the professor Wilkinson (University of Cardiff) ‘greater inequality damages the quality of social relations throughout society - violence increases’ (BBC News, 24 March 2006). On the other hand, inequality can be promoted through various social and political choices. In the case of imprisonment inequality can be promoted from the initial stage of the specific process (i.e. the arrest of criminal) up to the entrance of the latter in the society (after the end of imprisonment). In the first case, inequality will affect the punishment imposed to the criminal as a result of his actions while in the second case – return in society – inequality will affect the future conditions of life of the specific person. The inequality resulted because of the imprisonment will affect people of different social positions when they have to return in society. It should be noticed that the governmental efforts for the decrease of the number of prisoners and the development of alternative methods of punishment – both in UK and USA – do not seem to have the expected results. In fact, in Britain it has been proved that ‘the number of prisoners has increased by 25,000 in the last ten years’ (Prison Reform Trust, May 2007, 4). In USA the trends of crimes of various types (see Figure 1) are incremental. In order to understand the development of inequalities under the influence of the terms of imprisonment, it would be necessary to refer primarily to the potential differentiation of criminal behaviour among people belonging in different gender/ race. If such a differentiation would be proved, then the differentiation in the treatment of criminals belonging in different social gender/ race could be explained – although still would be not justifiable. The limits available for the improvement of the terms of imprisonment in the countries under examination – Britain and USA – should be also taken into consideration when the intervention in these countries’ imprisonment policies is attempted. In this context, it has been proved that ‘nations that retained use of the death penalty had a greater use of imprisonment’ (Ruddell, 2005, 7). The above study could be used in order to explain the imprisonment policies used in USA – where the death penalty is being applied. At a next level, it could be expected that Britain – where the death penalty is not longer applied – the terms of imprisonment are slightly more flexible in terms of their adaptation on a person’s social and personal profile. Under these terms, in USA imprisonment is more likely to promote inequalities among criminals/ prisoners while in Britain there are chances for the person arrested for a particular crime to support his rights under fairer conditions. mass imprisonment – definition and characteristics The term mass imprisonment is used in order to explain specific judicial policies in relation with the punishment of the actions that violate a country’s laws. In the study of Garland (2001) the term is used ‘to describe the institution that has emerged in the United States over the past two decades’ (Garland, 2001, 1). At a next level, the term is related with two specific features: ‘One is sheer numbers; mass imprisonment implies a rate of imprisonment and a size of prison population that is markedly above the historical and comparative norm for societies of this type; the other factor is the social concentration of imprisonment’s effects’ (Garland, 2001, 1). In other words, mass imprisonment reflects not only the number of people held in prisons across a country but also the effects of this punishment on the social framework of the specific country. Both these aspects need to be examined when the evaluation of the terms of imprisonment is attempted. Imprisonment and unemployment The relationship between imprisonment and unemployment reflects the dependence of imprisonment on a person’s financial status. Hsieh et al. (1993) tried to identify the differences in the criminal behaviour of people of different financial status. They came to the conclusion that the level of criminal behaviour is high in both poor and rich people – differences exist only in the types of crimes associated with people of different financial power. More specifically, it was proved that ‘homicide and assault may be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than are rape and robbery’ (Hsieh et al., 1993, 182). There was no indication that rich people tend to avoid crimes or that poor people are more likely to proceed to crimes than rich people. In this context, the differentiation in the behaviour of the police forces towards the criminals in accordance with their social/ financial background could not be justified. In the same context, no differentiation in imprisonment because of the financial power of criminal should be accepted. Relationship between imprisonment, gender and race It seems that inequality exists between men and women regarding the punishment imposed by the law. Indeed, when the relevant statistics from three states in USA, Kansas City, Miami and Chicago, were examined the following findings were revealed: ‘in all three jurisdictions, women face significantly lower odds of incarceration than do men; harsher treatment of racial minorities is confined to men but more lenient treatment of women is found for both racial minorities and Whites’ (Spohn et al., 2000, 149). In accordance with the above studies, social and financial background may not affect the imprisonment conditions and the punishment imposed; however, the gender – as a type of inequality developed within the prison – can affect the terms of imprisonment of criminals. From another point of view, inequalities regarding the imprisonment of men and women could be resulted by the fact that the development of criminal behaviour by women is at a lower level compared to men. In Britain different models of criminal behaviour can lead to different assumptions regarding the role of social and racial background in imprisonment. More specifically, it seems that in UK gender is not a decisive criterion for the development of inequalities regarding imprisonment across the country. In fact, it has been proved that ‘receptions into womens prisons have more than doubled in the last 10 years; a number of explanations have been offered for this: changes in the nature and seriousness of womens crime, moves towards dealing with male and female offenders more `equally and so on’ (Gelsthorpe et al., 2002, 277). However, it seems that the efforts to promote equality in imprisonment – at least in terms of gender – has led to other problems: women are sent to jail even for crimes that are of low importance – and which can be punished using alternative policies, like the social work. In other words, even if gender inequalities are under limitation in Britain – referring to the country’s rules of imprisonment – there are still other inequalities (including segregation) that should be eliminated in relation with all aspects of imprisonment in the specific country. Race is another factor that influences the terms of imprisonment. Differentiations among people with different racial background are a common phenomenon in most judicial systems worldwide – especially in the developed countries. In a relevant study it has been proved that ‘black males are at far greater risk of also facing the social disadvantages that accompany criminal punishment; even after felons complete their sentences, they often find whole classes of key privileges revoked and opportunities blocked’ (Wheelock, 2005, 82). Racial discrimination seems to influence the imprisonment of people with a specific racial background. Blacks and people that belong to minorities tend to face more hostility when having to enter again the society – after the end of imprisonment. In USA, the enforcement of inequalities in relation with the terms of imprisonment has been highlighted in the literature. The relationship between race and imprisonment cannot be doubted. In accordance with the study of Beckett and Western (2001 in Garland, 2001, p.45), ‘states with a large minority population have higher rates of incarceration’. From another point of view, it is noted by Wacquant (2001 in Garland, 2001, p.83) that ‘the past two decades have witnessed a swift and steady deepening of the gap between the imprisonment rates of blacks and whites (from about 1 to 5 to 1 to 8.5) and this rising ‘racial disproportionality’ can be traced directly to a single federal policy, namely, the War on Drugs launched by Ronald Reagan and expanded by the administration of George Bush and William Jefferson Clinton’. Different views have been also supported – based on different criteria for the examination of the relationship between imprisonment and race. An indicative example is the study of Wooldredge (2007) who examined the conditions of imprisonment and the neighbourhood environment of about 3,000 prisoners in Ohio. His study led to the assumption that ‘convicted felons from more disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to receive nonsuspended prison sentences, whereas a defendants race was unrelated to imprisonment’ (Wooldredge, 2007, 238). In another study, it is noted that in USA inequalities are not likely to promoted through the existing system of imprisonment. In fact, it is proved that inequalities in arrest of blacks and whites are eliminated if the relevant statistics are viewed as parts of the criminal behaviour developed within a specific region. Towards this direction, the study of Ousey et al. (2008) which was based on statistics related with the crimes conducted in 136 cities of USA led to the conclusion that ‘an uneven distribution of Blacks and Whites is associated with higher arrest disparities for drug and weapons arrests, but not with violent or property crime arrest disparities’ (Ousey et al., 2008, 322). Racial background as a criterion for different imprisonment conditions of criminals is therefore considered as having only a limited role. In fact, other issues, like the local social aspects on crime and punishment are likely to lead to the development of inequalities among criminals but also to inequalities in the punishment imposed for the same crime – like in the case of the death penalty which is applied only in specific states of USA and not accepted in others. The level of imprisonment in USA, this can be estimated through the graph presented in Figure 1 where the trends regarding the crimes of various types are displayed. To a more detailed analysis of the prison statistics in USA it is noticed that ‘on December 31 2007, 2,293,157 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 1.5% from yearend 2006’ (USA, Bureau of Justice, Statistics). Figure 1 – Population in prisons across USA (in accordance with the crime committed), USA Department of Justice, 2007 The increase of imprisonment rates in USA could be possibly related with the relevant increase of the poverty among population especially its parts that present specific demographic/ cultural characteristics, like blacks, Asians and so on. The specific fact is highlighted in the study of Selke et al. (2003) where it is made clear that ‘percentage of Black population in the state and percentage of the population without health insurance were found to have significant relationships with imprisonment rates, providing initial support for social stress theory of imprisonmen’ (Selke et al., 2003, 426). Similar assumptions could be developed for UK – inequalities and segregation resulted because of imprisonment could lead to the increase of unemployment among ex-prisoners; an increase of criminality among the relevant part of the population is also likely to follow. 3. Conclusion Inequalities and segregation as a result of imprisonment should not be underestimated; ex-prisoners that try to enter the society and face the rejection may well commit other crimes being convinced that the exit from the prison was just typical and that their crime is likely to stigmatize their life in future. It should be noticed however, that inequality and segregation are likely to be developed differently in societies that have different social and cultural ethics. In this context, imprisonment is likely to affect differently the personal life of ex-prisoners in countries around the world. In UK and USA different priorities are set regarding the elimination of inequalities and segregation in relation with the conditions and the terms of imprisonment. The above differences can be explained using the study of Neopolitan (2001) where it is revealed that ‘geographic region variables are important in classifying nations by prison conditions and capital punishment, again indicating the probable importance of historical and cultural factors’ (Neapolitan, 2001, 691). In other words, differences can be expected among states in the international community regarding all aspects of imprisonment under the influence of the local ethics and culture as well as the social patterns on equality and fairness. At a next level, in both USA and UK the population of prisons is high; the chances for the development of inequalities among the people convicted but also those that are arrested are high. In UK, like in USA, imprisonment is likely to be preferred for the punishment of various crimes – even those that are not serious and can be punished effectively by different options, like the provision of social work. In accordance with a relevant report (of May 2007) ‘the total UK prison population on 13 April 2007 was 88,583; England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe at 149 per 100,000 of the population’ (Prison Reform Trust, May 2007, 4). In accordance with the above, the improvement of the terms of imprisonment in Britain and USA in order to avoid the enforcement of inequalities is a target difficult to be achieved. Specific social policies should be promoted at a first level – the limitation of inequalities among the population is a problem that should be examined and regulated in all its aspects – not only in relation with imprisonment. References BBC News (2006) How inequality divide us, available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4841046.stm Beckett, K. and Western, B (2001), ‘Governing social marginality: Welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy’ in Garland, D. (ed) Mass Imprisonment: social causes and consequences, London. Sage. Garland, D. (2001), ‘Introduction: The meaning of mass imprisonment’ in Garland, D. (ed) Mass Imprisonment: social causes and consequences, London, Sage. Gelsthorpe, L., Morris, A. (2002) Womens imprisonment in England and Wales - A penal paradox. Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, No. 3, 277-301 Hallett, M. (2002) Race, crime, and for-profit imprisonment: Social disorganization as market opportunity. Punishment & Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, 369-393 Hsieh, C., Pugh, M. (1993) Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies. Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, 182-202 Neapolitan, J. (2001) An Examination of Cross-National Variation in Punitiveness. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 45, No. 6, 691-710 Ousey, G., Lee, M. (2008) Racial Disparity in Formal Social Control - An Investigation of Alternative Explanations of Arrest Rate Inequality. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 45, No. 3, 322-355 Prison Reform Trust (2007) Prison Factfile, available from http://www.ws3.prisonreform.web.baigent.net/temp/FactfilespMaysp2007spFinal.pdf Ruddell, R. (2005) Social disruption, state priorities, and minority threat. Punishment & Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, 7-28 Selke, W., Andersson, S. (2003) A Test of Social Stress Theory As Applied to the Study of Imprisonment Rates. The Prison Journal, Vol. 83, No. 4, 426-441 Spohn, C., Beichner, D. (2000) Is Preferential Treatment of Female Offenders a Thing of the Past? A Multisite Study of Gender, Race, and Imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, 149-184 USA, Department of Justice (2007) Prisoners convicted of a violent offense make up over half of the prison population, available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm Wacquant, L. (2001), ‘Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh’ in Garland. D. (ed) Mass Imprisonment: social causes and consequences, London. Sage. Wheelock, D. (2005) Collateral Consequences and Racial Inequality - Felon Status Restrictions as a System of Disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 21, No. 1, 82-90 Wooldredge, J. (2007) Neighborhood Effects on Felony Sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 44, No. 2, 238-263 Read More