Ann Cammett,
"Queer Lockdown: Coming to Terms with the Ongoing Criminalization of LGBTQ Communities"
(page 3 of 9)
A criminal conviction can also subject an individual to myriad other
punishments that are not strictly collateral consequences. Hidden
sanctions can appear in the form of fees owed to the state arising from
imprisonment,[19]
including payment for the cost of probation, parole and
restitution, debt garnishment such as child support arrears, and other
counterproductive sanctions like automatic suspension of driver's
licenses for any drug conviction. Such barriers make it difficult for
people to stay out of the criminal justice system after release. The
vast majority of prisoners will come home eventually, but recidivism
rates are high: of those leaving prison, nearly two-thirds will return
within three years.[20]
There is an inescapable nexus between entrenched poverty, the
criminal justice system, and the sanctions that ultimately punish people
simply because they are poor. One aspect of these civil disabilities
should be of particular interest to anti-poverty advocates. Collateral
sanctions—particularly against people with drug convictions—have an
impact on poor people almost exclusively. Prisoners are overwhelmingly
low-income,[21]
but collateral sanctions deprive formerly incarcerated
people of opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty. These same
sanctions applied against those with financial and social resources will
have a negligible impact. Consider just a few of the collateral
consequences that have an effect on the areas of life most necessary to
stabilize after a prison or jail sentence:
- Formerly incarcerated people are likely to find employment, if at
all, in the low-wage economy. This is based on the level of work-related
skills and education that the majority of them possess. Without the
social connections available to people with more resources, returnees
have a diminished ability to create opportunities less dependent on the
wage economy. Therefore, they are far more negatively affected by the
vast array of general restrictions on jobs (and even occupational
licenses) for people with criminal records.
- Next to meaningful employment, secure housing is critical for
successful reintegration. Most housing prohibitions for people with
criminal records are directed against those seeking federally subsidized
housing, and these are among the poorest of Americans. Further, the same
housing restrictions prevent formerly incarcerated people from living
with family members in public housing who will be at risk of eviction if
they reside with them, even temporarily.
- Bans on public benefits, which in some states are total if you are
convicted of a drug crime, preclude those who are poor and
substance-addicted from obtaining meaningful drug treatment and
recovery, since they are not able to pay for private rehabilitation
centers that require health insurance.
Civil legal barriers create more restricted access to social support
for low-income people with criminal records, and sometimes foreclose
access entirely. Formerly incarcerated individuals arguably need social
services and subsidies the most, owing to the lack of access to
education, employment opportunities, and substance abuse treatment
typically reported before entering the criminal justice
system.[22] The
rhetoric of redemption and, specifically, reentry suggests that those
who have "paid their debt to society" deserve a second chance to make
things right and live, if they choose, as law-abiding citizens.
For many low-income people, civil legal barriers, in addition to
conviction-related stigma, make the promise of a new life an empty
one.
The unprecedented number of people currently in prison, on probation
or parole, or simply saddled with a criminal record means that
incarceration is an issue that anti-poverty advocates must address if
they are to develop any effective strategies to engender economic
justice. Rethinking crime strategies may allow for specifically
exploring the possibilities of restitution and "restorative justice,"
rather than simply locking up
offenders.[23] This might serve to
strengthen and protect poor communities more comprehensively in the long
run. Aggressive jailing, without more, does nothing to rebuild
communities damaged by violence and the effects of incarceration.
Consequently, anti-poverty activists and scholars must begin to
incorporate a different paradigm to address incarceration as both a
consequence of poverty and a co-recurring factor in a vast majority of
low-income communities[24] in the United States.
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Next page
|