-
6. Crime and Prison: The Social Control of Deviance
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Six Crime and Prison: The Social Control of Deviance If the purpose of imprisonment were to socialize men to become as violent as possible—both while they are there, and after they return to the community— we could hardly find a more effective way to accomplish it. —James Gilligan, Violence THE UNITED STATES has more prisons and more people in prison (over 2 million) than any other country. Yet we still have more violent crime than any other postindustrial nation in the world. The data present a very bleak picture of our society and our criminal justice system: • The state of California has opened only one college since 1984—and twenty-one prisons. • There are five times as many Americans in prison today as in 1970. • The national incarceration rate in 1997 was twice that in 1985. • California has the third largest prison system in the world. • Young black men in the United States are more than one hundred times as likely to suffer a violent death than are young men in France or Great Britain. • Forty percent of Los Angeles residents personally know someone who has been killed or seriously injured in a violent attack. 131 • There are more homicides in Los Angeles (population 3.5 million) than in all of England and Wales (population 50 million). (Yet we incarcerated six times as many people as the British.) • A shoplifter with two previous convictions for burglary can be sentenced to prison for life without any chance of parole. • Nearly three out of every ten black men have been or can expect to be locked up in federal or state penitentiaries sometime during their lives. • Currently there are seven times as many inmates in California prisons than less than twenty years ago. (Currie, 1998) Clearly, we are not winning the War on Crime. Some think we are too lenient on crime and demand stiffer sentences, more prisons, and harsher treatment of juvenile offenders. This chapter argues against this approach for three reasons: it is too expensive, it is unethical, and it does not significantly decrease violent crime. Furthermore, the data will suggest that we are not, in fact, lenient on crime. In fact, sentencing has become more severe for those who have been arrested and then convicted of crimes. A S O C I A L E T H I C S A P P R O A C H T O C R I M E P R E V E N T I O N P O L I C Y The possibilities for preventing violent crime are great and still fundamentally undeveloped. On the other hand, the possibility of stopping crime by building more prisons, incarcerating younger offenders, and handing out longer sentences is not only ineffective and tremendously costly but also unethical. There is a substantial gap (with a few notable exceptions) between what social-scientific research tells us about alleviating crime and what our criminal justice policy actually is. Current policy debate does little to address the sources of crime, crime prevention, the rehabilitation of criminals, and the functions and limitations of punitive intervention. While our prisons swell from overcrowding, violent crime has not been substantially reduced. The media have provided the public with half-truths, misconceptions, myths, and often-conflicting coverage of crime. Moreover, the 2000 presidential debates did not seriously address issues about crime. The myths also continue because they support the political and economic status quo. The control of crime is big business. The recent and dramatic increase in the number of those who have been incarcerated in some states has manufactured a large and politically powerful constituency of people whose employment and status rest on maintaining or expanding current levels. Of course, a tough-oncrime position by politicians is always viewed favorably by the public. Scholars , as well, have often benefited tremendously from this approach. 1 3 2 Wa l l s a n d B r i d g e s [54.159.186.146] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 22:34 GMT) Perhaps most important, these myths serve a deep ideological function. They support a Social Darwinian approach to society that justifies social inequality . This punitive and impressionable response to crime is a harsh assault on the poor ethnic minorities and those who deviate from mainstream culture . It is an indirect attack on social welfare policy and an explicit blaming the victim for his own poverty and misfortunes. Our social policies emphasize personal responsibility but do not recognize the...