“Like the ‘coloreds’ in the years following emancipation, criminals today are deemed a characterless and purposeless people, deserving of our collective scorn and contempt.” p. 170
In Chapter 4, Prof. Alexander investigates the “cruel hand” that rests on those people who reenter mainstream society after release from prison or even simply have a criminal record without jail time. With a criminal record, a person carries a lifelong stigma, trying to survive in a world in which discrimination is perfectly legal. Because of this legal discrimination, many people cannot find jobs or a place to live, are denied food assistance, lose their children as well as their dignity, and end up back in prison.
The first problem people released from prison face is finding a place to live. Despite the fact that these people are usually destitute, federal laws passed under President Clinton make it virtually impossible for people with a criminal conviction, particularly a drug conviction, to qualify and/or keep federally subsidized housing. In addition, family members or friends in subsidized housing may be reluctant to help because they too can lose their housing for simply being associated with someone who has a drug conviction or even just an arrest. Non-subsidized housing is no easier to get – it is more expensive and private landlords may be no more inclined than the subsidized landlords to rent to those with criminal records. As a result, the recently incarcerated often end up on the streets or in homeless shelters.
Most jurisdictions require gainful employment as an ongoing condition of parole – no job, no freedom – yet jobs are no easier to find than housing. Job applications frequently ask about criminal convictions, and in most states, even an arrest can result in a denied job. Many employers will turn away anyone who “checks the box” without any further inquiry. The stigma of prison or probation is only exacerbated by the fact that 70% of people with a criminal record did not finish high school, and 50% of them are considered functionally illiterate. The manufacturers that used to be hire people with less education and/or criminal records have long since left the urban areas that are often “home” to the recently incarcerated. The service jobs that might employ them are often far away in the suburbs and exurbs and difficult to get to without a car. Cars, of course, are costly plus it is not at all unusual for the recently incarcerated to be denied a driver’s license. Many states deny them other licenses that might help with employment as well such as a barber’s license or an electrician’s license.
With or without employment, the recently incarcerated and those on probation or parole often face a plethora of fees imposed by various government agencies to help recoup the costs of their interaction with the criminal justice system. The fees can include charges such as jail booking fees, costs of pretrial detainment, bail investigations, application fees for a public defender, costs of a public defender, presentence report fees, parole/probation monitoring fees, transitional housing costs, accrued child support, and, to top it all off, a debt collector’s surcharge. Can’t pay your fees? Lose your driver’s license, which means you’ll probably lose your job and your situation will worsen. At worst, it’s back to jail, or perhaps we should call it what it is: debtor’s prison.
For many people, incarceration also results in a lifelong loss of the right to vote. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia deny voting during incarceration (this differs drastically from most other economically developed democracies that not only allow but encourage voting while in prison), and most state continue to disallow voting during parole or longer. Where the formerly incarcerated can have their voting rights reinstated, the process typically involves a daunting, bureaucratic maze of forms, fees, and public shame.
Next week’s reading concludes Chapter 4, in which Prof. Alexander discusses the social and emotional effect of incarceration’s stigma.
Many of the issues discussed in chapter 4 are not considered punishment but rather “collateral consequences” by the judicial system. Since they are not technically punishment, they do not necessarily need to be discussed with a defendant during plea negotiations. Prof. Alexander (and others) posit that this is unfair because a defendant might weigh a plea offer differently if all the consequences of a guilty plea were known. What do you think?
The Supreme Court has said that collateral consequences do not generally violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Do you agree? Assuming we will continue to allow collateral consequences, are there viable solutions to the problems faced by those with a criminal record that could alleviate the downward spiral?