ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD GREGORY A. WEEKSThe E ffe c ts o .docx

ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD
GREGORY A. WEEKS
The E ffe c ts o f M a s s
In c a r c e r a tio n o n
C o m m u n it ie s o f C o lo r
In poor and
disadvantaged
communities,
there may well be
a tipping point at
which rigorous
crime policies and
practices can
do more harm
than good.
nderstandably, most of us would expect that removing
criminals—those
who would victimize others—from a community would be
welcomed
by the populace, and that both residents and their property
would be
better off as a result. For most places, that is likely true.
Removing a
person who has hurt others or who does not respect the property
of

others is tantamount to removing a thorn from a tender foot. But
there
is a growing body of evidence that suggest that this may not
always be
the case, because of the effects that time in prison has on
individuals and
their home communities. There are collateral consequences that
accrue
to imprisoned people even after their sentences are completed,
and some
criminologists believe that when the number of felons removed
from a
community is “too high,” it may actually harm the places where
they use
to live. And, since most people who are incarcerated return to
the same
neighborhoods, or very similar places as those they were
removed from,
their presence in large numbers, when they go home, adds a
substantial
burden there, too.
Although the United States has made some progress, it remains
a
substantially racially segregated nation residentially. And, the
country
stays very economically segregated as well. It is not surprising
that poor
people of color have been incarcerated disproportionately
during the
massive increase in imprisonment that has occurred in the
nation since
the early 1980s. It is from poor communities of color that a very
large
number of felons are removed, and to these same neighborhoods
that

they return when their sentences end. This population churning
has been
called “coercive mobility” by criminologists. Although it is the
intent
of legislatures, judges, police, and prosecutors to protect
citizens and
communities, there is reason to believe that coercive mobility
has the
unintended consequence of actually increasing crime and
victimization.
Some of the changes during this period of increased
incarceration
that disadvantaged people of color coming into the justice
system were
implemented with the help and support of African American
political
leadership, with the express purpose of protecting black and
brown
communities. Perhaps the best example of this is the initial
federal
sentences for crack cocaine offenses: conviction for crack
selling (more
heavily sold and used by people of color) resulting in a sentence
100 times
46 ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TEC H N O LOG Y
INCARCERATION
more severe than for selling the same amount of powder
cocaine (more heavily sold and used by whites).
A long-running academic debate among criminologists

has gone on during this same period about race and justice,
the central question being how much of high minority
incarceration is a consequence of differential involvement
in criminal behavior versus a biased criminal justice system.
That debate is not settled. But one factor is pretty much
agreed upon: There is overrepresentation of minority group
members among those engaging in crime, but even after this
is taken into account, people of color are overrepresented in
U.S. prisons and jails. The question is how much of the high
levels of incarceration of African Americans and Latinos is
warranted by higher levels of crime and what proportion is
unwarranted. The best research indicates that the answers to
these questions should be answered by looking specifically at
types of crimes. Among the most serious violent crimes, the
evidence suggests that unwarranted racial disparity is modest.
For less serious crimes, the proportion of unwarranted racial
disparity increases. This can be seen clearly by considering
the evidence on drug imprisonments resulting from the war
on drugs. Good evidence indicates that racial and ethnic
groups use and sell drugs proportionally to their represen-
tation in the population; so about 13percent of drug users
and sellers are African Americans, about 17 percent are from
the various Latino groups, and approximately 65 percent are
whites (whites tend to sell to whites; blacks to blacks). But,
more than 50 percent of those imprisoned for drug sales or
possession are people of color. In fact, one study by the group
Human Rights Watch found that black men are sentenced on
drug charges at a rate that is more than 13 times higher than
white men.
Some observers have claimed that African American and
Latino drug dealers are more likely to be arrested because
their activities are more likely to occur in open air public
drug markets than does the dealing of whites. But at least
one study has found that police elect to pursue open air drug
markets with minority dealers and ignore those where whites

are selling. Overall, the war on drugs has been especially hard
on minority individuals and communities, and this cannot
be justified by overrepresentation of these groups in this
particular form of criminal behavior.
Contrary to what some casual observers might think,
residents of African American and Latino communities
want crime control, as well as effective and fair policing and
a criminal justice system that removes crime perpetrators
but that is also accountable to those communities. Popular
media reports that focus on the “don’t snitch” norm of some
segments of those communities mask important distinctions.
First, the belief that a don’t snitch mindset exists in black
communities tends to “criminalize” the entire population.
This feeds into the historical experience of many law abiding
citizens living in these communities that as far as “the system”
is concerned, they are all criminals. Most people living in
communities of color are law abiding citizens who have little
in the way of other housing options. They feel that they are
stopped, hassled, and disrespected by police just as often as
those who are actually committing crimes. For these folks,
there is little incentive to cooperate with a system they believe
will ultimately abandon them when a case is over. Second,
people in these communities have to live there 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. They know that law enforcement
won’t be there to protect them forever. They have to live
with the very real fear of retaliation from criminals in the
community if they cooperate. It is not unusual for witnesses,
and even victims, to a crime to refuse to testify or cooperate
because they believe that the system will abandon them when
a case is over. To the extent that a don’t snitch norm exists,
it is primarily observed among some young people in very
socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Also,
the populations in even the most disadvantaged sections of
cities are very heterogeneous with respect to views of police

and criminal justice agencies and institutions. Young African
Americans who wear “don’t snitch” t-shirts are no more
representative of their communities than young whites with
multiple piercings and tattoos are of theirs.
Some observers perceive the “black lives matter”
movement to include a demand to remove police from black
neighborhoods. Nothing could be further from the truth. That
movement is calling for effective and accountable policing. So
when serious criminals—those who victimize and terrorize
black and brown communities—are arrested, convicted,
and imprisoned, there are multiple responses in the places
where they lived and, more often than not, engaged in their
predatory behavior. There may be those who see and lament
“another brother oppressed by the man, but the vast majority
of people who live there will be pleased that someone who
hurt and victimized others is, at least for a time, no longer
roaming their streets free to wreak more havoc.
Problems with the "solutions"
As is the case for every community, when criminals are
removed from socially and economically disadvantaged
African American and Latino communities, there is a benefit
to those places. Not only is a person who would victimize
others not able to do so, but crime, especially high levels
of crime, are bad for the collective good of communities.
Crime can destabilize neighborhoods. When people live in
fear of personal or property victimization, they view their
environment as a threatening, scary place. Such spaces do not
promote the kind of cohesion and closeness among neighbors
that is important for healthy and productive social engage-
ment. When residential areas, and even commercial districts,
are cohesive and individuals are engaged with each other,
people can participate in the kinds of social life that make
crime less likely. So, too much crime actually increases the

FALL 2015 47
likelihood of more crime.
What some criminologists fear is that going too far in
the opposite direction—with the criminal justice system
removing too many residents from a neighborhood—poten-
tially causes two separate but related types of problems.
With incarceration there is collateral damage to those locked
up, as well as to those who they are connected to: partners,
children, extended family, and any positive friendship
networks they had. Also, and perhaps less obvious, removing
too many people from a troubled neighborhood can have a
detrimental, crime-causing effect.
The overwhelming majority of inmates will be released
from prison after serving their sentences, and the nation has
struggled with how to help them reenter society. Generally,
released prisoners must return to the county where they
last lived, which, for most, means returning to a poor and
socially isolated inner-city neighborhood or community.
The unprecedented numbers now being released have
compounded the problem. Many prisoners entered the
system with drug, alcohol, or mental problems. In the vast
majority of instances, they received little or no treatment or
counseling during their incarceration because of reduced
funding for rehabilitation programs as well as the closing or
scaling back of state mental facilities. Prisons, and even jails,
have become the dumping grounds of necessity for those
who have mental health issues. On another level, general
health care within prisons, including mental health care, has
been woefully inadequate, resulting in a number of lawsuits
against both federal and state corrections systems. Unfortu-
nately, this means that prisoners released back into their old

communities return no better off—or, in many instances,
worse off—than they were before being incarcerated.
In addition, released prisoners face collateral conse-
quences that they were largely unaware of at the time they
were originally sentenced. Collateral consequences to the
imprisoned are the effects that remain after the formal
sentence has been served. These damages are inflicted by
law and by social practice. Among the former, some of the
more onerous consequences are the legal denial of some
social benefits—public housing access, welfare benefits, some
college loans and grants, the right to vote, the right to live
or work in certain places (school zones for some offenders),
and requirements to register with local authorities. These
damages were enacted by legislative bodies to punish those
convicted of crimes, in the belief that those who violate
“the social contract” should not benefit from the public’s
largess, or in the belief that barring convicted felons from
some of the things that others have access to is for the good
of the broader community. But, not having access to these
“privileges” will inhibit some who have been released from
prison from taking the straight, narrow, and legitimate
path, and thus increase the likelihood of them becoming
again involved in criminal behavior. In addition to legally
specified collateral consequences of felony convictions (and
in some jurisdictions some misdemeanor convictions), there
are informal consequences as well. Those who are convicted
frequently lose intimate relationships with partners or access
to their children, and they are less likely to find employment.
Significantly, these consequences accrue even among inmates
who do not spend long sentences in “the big house.”
There are also collateral damages to the families of those
imprisoned, both while they are locked up and when they are
released. One study, for example, found that the financial and

time strain on the wives and girlfriends of inmates in upstate
New York prisons imperiled relationships with both the
women in prisoners’ lives and their children. Since families are
a good anchor for prisoners when they are released, disrup-
tions in family life increase the chances of recidivism. Another
study comparing neighborhoods with high and low rates of
incarceration, found that in the former, the gender ratio is
sufficiently thrown off by the number of men going into and
coming out of prison that marriage markets are negatively
affected.
It has long been known that adding too many new resi-
dents to cities and neighborhoods can have a “criminogenic”
effect, because when there are more new faces, when there
are ever changing faces, the integration of new arrivals into
the community is inhibited, allowing greater individual
anonymity. Such circumstances create fertile ground for crime
to occur and perhaps flourish. To be clear, this does not mean
that migrants bring crime with them. In fact, the evidence has
long suggested that movers have less of the characteristics that
are predictive of criminal behavior. The problem is the lack
of social integration. Similarly, when communities lose too
large of a segment of their population, this same important,
crime-inhibiting social integration can be disrupted. It is
important to remember that even people who break the law
occupy many different roles. They are husbands or wives or
girlfriends or boyfriends, sons, daughters, friends, coworkers,
and neighbors. Families and the neighborhoods in which they
reside struggle to fill the void when members are no longer
there. The removal of too many people from communities
can be disruptive. The nation has seen this in recent years
when sections of formerly industrial capitals, such as Detroit,
Cleveland, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh, have lost population as
people left in search of jobs. Some criminologists believe that
when people from a community are imprisoned at a high
enough number—coercive mobility—the effect may also be

criminogenic.
So there are two countervailing forces or arguments:
that removing problem criminal people improves the life of
neighborhoods, and that removing too many people and then
returning them can be criminogenic. The two most prom -
inent researchers who have made the case regarding coercive
mobility and its deleterious effects are Dina Rose and Todd
Clear. They believe that there is a tipping point, below which
48 ISSUES IN SCIENCE A N D TECHNOLOGY
INCARCERATION
l i f e in t h e U .S .
imprisonment is normally
good for a community, but
above which it becomes
criminogenic. This effect,
coercive mobility leading
to crime, is not thought to
happen everywhere, but
in severely socially and
economically disadvantaged
places. This is, in part,
because a large amount
of serious crime occurs
there, but also because such
places have very limited
resources and do not have
the collective resiliency to
overcome high levels of
imprisonment and large

numbers of released men
and women returning to the
same problematic neigh-
borhoods from which they
came, or ones very much
like them.
Before considering the
evidence for coercive mobility’s effects on communities, one
more very important negative force should be highlighted:
the diminished state—human capital, in the words of sociol-
ogists—of most returning former prisoners. It is generally
accepted that having a good, solid family life lowers the proba-
bility of a person becoming involved in crime, and that having
employment (especially good employment) does the same.
Predictably, those most likely to be sentenced to a term in
prison are less likely than others of their age, race, and gender
to be involved in a stable relationship or to have been employed
in a high-quality job prior to their incarceration. When men
and women return from prison, their family life has an even
higher likelihood of having been disrupted, and their competi-
tiveness on the job market is even more diminished than it was
before they were incarcerated. Time in prison means that these
already marginal people are more marginalized, and they tend
to return to living in neighborhoods that are already distressed
by the presence of too many disrupted families and high levels
of joblessness. They add to the already overcrowded pool of
residents likely to not be in good relationships, to not be good
prospects as mates, and to be not competitive for the desirable
good jobs that will help them stay out of jail or prison and
might help their community’s dismal economic state.
Which brings things back to the coercive mobility
argument, as it may be critically important. If its proponents
are correct, the very effort to reduce crime in some of the
nation’s highest crime communities is doing the opposite in the

context of mass incarceration. As a consequence, the National
Research Council (NRC) committee charged with studying the
causes and consequences of high rates of imprisonment took
some time to evaluate the evidence for and against this thesis.
The evidence is not conclusive, but it is suggestive. As
observed
in cities across the country, incarceration is very concentrated
geographically.
In addition, the evidence indicates that, indeed, the places
that released prisoners return to are just as geographically
concentrated in other ways, as shown by comparison of the
racial and ethnic composition of high-incarceration neighbor-
hoods with the rest of the city, and the poverty rates for these
communities and the city as a whole. The areas of concentrated
incarceration are in predominately minority districts. This is
the case in cities throughout the United States. The committee
also found strong evidence that these places are among the most
economically and socially disadvantaged sections of U.S. cities.
Thus, there is little doubt about this portion of the argument:
prisoners come from and return to a narrow group of neigh-
borhoods, very disadvantaged ones. Two other aspects of the
coercive mobility argument are less clear.
First, there is some evidence that this concentration pattern
is criminogenic, but other researchers have not found evidence
that this pattern increases crime above and beyond what would
generally be expected for similar neighborhoods. The strongest
evidence for the argument has been presented by Rose and
Clear in “Incarceration, Social Capital and Crime: Examining
the Unintended Consequences of Incarceration,” based on their
work in Tallahassee, Florida, and published in the journal Crim-
inology in 1998, and in Clears review of research in his book
Imprisoning Communities, published in 2007. Some additional

research has also provided support. The strongest evidence to
the contrary comes from several studies conducted by James
Lynch and William Sabol in Baltimore, which yielded mixed
evidence, but could not confirm the idea that incarceration was
increasing crime rates in some of the city’s neighborhoods.
Second, critical to this notion is that there is a tipping point
below which incarceration benefits communities, but above
which high levels of coercive mobility increases crime rates.
The research evidence does indicate that there is a nonlinear
relationship between imprisonment and crime, which suggests
that there is such a tipping point, but criminologists to date
have
not been able to settle on where that tipping point is.
After considering the evidence, the NRC committee
concluded that it did not allow for affirmation that high levels
of imprisonment cause crime in these neighborhoods. Interest-
ingly, the committee reported that an analytically major
problem
for examining this thesis is that it is too hard—indeed, virtually
impossible—to find enough white neighborhoods with the
same levels of either imprisonment or disadvantage that exists
routinely in many African American communities in nearly
every major American city to allow for meaningful analysis.
Cities in the United States are still far too racially segregated
to make the analytic comparisons that are necessary, and the
FALL 2015 49
minority neighborhoods are where the disadvantaged are
concentrated and from where prisoners are disproportionally
drawn. So, although the committee could not affirm that
high levels of incarceration increases crime in disadvantaged

minority neighborhoods, it did find that the quantitative
evidence is suggestive of that pattern. And a number of
ethnographers—who have been spending time in these
communities and watching how families, friendship networks,
and communities are faring—are adding additional evidence
that indicates that high levels of imprisonment, concentrated in
disadvantaged communities of color, are indeed criminogenic.
Researchers are increasingly finding that both the collateral
consequences of imprisonment, and living in communities
from which many of the imprisoned come from and return
to, do have detrimental effects. And these effects are visited
upon the reentering individual, on their families, and on the
communities at large. Reentering former inmates’ chances of
success and reduced probability of recidivism are enhanced
if they are returning to healthy families and can find decent
employment. It has been well established that men, whether
or not they have been to prison, are less likely to be involved
in crime if they are in stable intimate relationships, employed
gainfully, and living in decent housing. And for those returning
from prison, those who establish these life patterns are more
likely to have successful reentry to their communities. Impor-
tantly, a large proportion of men being released from prison
hopes to and expects to live with their children. But families
and children are negatively affected when parents go into
prison, as well as when they return.
Unfortunately, in places characterized by high levels of
incarceration, there are additional challenges. Studies of
the effects of high incarceration rates in neighborhoods in
Oakland have found that important institutions—families and
schools, as well as businesses and criminal justice personnel,
such as police and parole officers—have become reconfigured
to focus on marginalized young boys, increasing the chances
that they become more marginalized and involved in crime.
Other studies in similar places in Philadelphia have also

found that high levels of imprisonment undermined familial,
employment, and community relationships, increasing the
likelihood of criminal involvement. Additionally, researchers
in San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.,
have found that housing, family relationships, marriage, and
successful reentry after prison appear to be negatively influ-
enced by high neighborhood levels of incarceration.
More ominously, evidence indicates that these patterns
likely have a vicious intergenerational cycle. Children of
individuals who have been imprisoned have reduced educa-
tional attainment, which obviously bodes ill for their future
economic competitiveness. This means that in places with
high levels of incarceration, this practice is contributing to
another generation that has a heightened likelihood of living
in disadvantaged communities. Additionally, researchers have
found that judges are more
likely to sentence children
who come before the juvenile
court more harshly if they
come from disadvantaged
neighborhoods than from
more stable communities—
yet again continuing the
cycle of people moving from
disadvantaged places to
prison, which makes those
neighborhoods more margin-
alized, which then increases
the likelihood of the state
removing more people, both
juveniles and adults, into the
corrections system.
W h a t can be done?

There is an obvious and very
straightforward answer to
the policy question of how
to confront the negative
effects of mass incarcera-
tion—and that is to reduce it.
Mass incarceration did not come about because of substantial
increases in crime, but rather because of a set of policy choices
that the nation has made. The same simple answer will address
the policy question of how to confront the negative impact
of mass incarceration on communities of color. Taking this
step—reducing mass incarceration—will have profound effects
on these communities, because they have disproportionally
suffered from the increases in incarceration. And for anyone
who may worry, there is no evidence to suggest that a move
away from the high level of imprisonment, which characterizes
the United States more than any other nation in the world, will
result in a substantial increase in crime.
Another important way to address the problems for commu-
nities of color is to reduce the residential racial and economic
segregation that continues to cause problems for social life in
the United States. Admittedly, aiming for this goal will place
greater challenges on policymakers and the public alike.
The good news is that there are efforts under way that, if
moved forward, would mitigate some of the problems caused
by the collateral consequences from imprisonment and some
of the negative effects of coercive mobility on communities
of color. In 2010, the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws proposed the Uniform Collateral
Consequences of Criminal Convictions Act, model legislation
that might be adopted by the states. If passed, bills such as
this would mandate that defendants be advised of all of the

collateral consequences that formally accompany felony
convictions at the time of sentencing and how they might
S u b s t a n t i a l
p o l i c y c h a n g e s
t h a t c r e a t e m o r e
r o b u s t s t a t e
e f f o r t s t o s u p p o r t
i n d i v i d u a l s d u r i n g
r e e n t r y w i l l n o t
o n l y h e l p t h e m ,
b u t t h e i r f a m i l i e s
a n d t h e p l a c e s
t h e y r e t u r n t o
a s w e l l .
50 ISSUES IN SCIENCE AN D TEC HNO LOG Y
INCARCERATION
be mitigated. Currently, courts have no obligation to advise
defendants as to these collateral consequences because they are
deemed to be “sanctions” rather than punishment. Furthermore,

most criminal defense lawyers themselves do not know about
or understand the range of collateral consequences that their
clients face. In 2013, the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers released a book titled Collateral Consequences
o f Criminal Convictions: Law, Policy and Practice, written by
Margaret Colgate Love, Jenny Roberts, and Cecelia Klingele
and
published jointly with Thomson Reuters Westlaw. It is
described
as “a comprehensive resource for practicing civil and criminal
lawyers, judges and policymakers on the legal restrictions and
penalties that result from a criminal conviction over and above
the court-imposed sentence.” Yet, today, most defendants have
no idea of the added consequences they will face upon release
from incarceration.
It is hoped that discussions around the proposed Uniform
Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions Act would
have the collateral benefit of pressing policymakers to seek out
means by which they might mitigate the negative consequences.
Since the majority of convictions are the result of plea agree-
ments, defendants might be better informed of the consequences
of their decisions. To date, several states, including Vermont,
New York, Maryland, and Oregon, as well as the U.S. Virgin
Islands, have either enacted or introduced bills that contain
elements of the model bill.
States may also elect to opt out of some of the federally
mandated collateral consequences for some convictions. For
instance, people convicted of drug offenses are, according to
federal law, not permitted to receive some “welfare benefits,” or
to live in federally subsidized housing. This is especially prob-
lematic for the families of the convicted, because they are then
faced with the choice of receiving these benefits or turning
away
from the stigmatized family member. The latter option is hard

on the maintenance of families and removes from the formerly
incarcerated important support systems that enable successful
reentry. States are permitted by Congress to opt out of these
penalties, but their legislatures need to formally affirmatively
enact laws to not have those sanctions applied in their state.
Before federal and state lawmakers decided to get tough on
crime by increasing sentencing, most jurisdictions had more
robust community services providers for returning prisoners.
They were called parole officers. The role of these agents varied
from place to place; some of the agents emphasized the police
and enforcement aspects of the job, but others emphasized their
roles to assist with what is now called reentry. Unfortunately,
with the elimination of parole in some states, restrictions on it
elsewhere, and declines in budgets for these services, too few
people are charged with the responsibility to aid in the reentry
process. This is a problem for both the returning individuals and
for their families and communities. For example, now that the
state of Washington has legalized the recreational use of m ari-
juana, the state is in the process of releasing inmates currently
held for possession convictions. One of the young men about
to be released told a visiting academic researcher that he was
worried because he had no home to return to, no job, and few
prospects to help him when he stepped out of the prison door.
As far as he knew, the state would not be providing him with
reentry assistance. Both the negative effects of imprisonment
to individuals and to high-incarceration communities can be
mitigated if those returning are aided by having stable housing,
their families are supported, and they are assisted in finding and
holding employment. Although there were problems with the
old sentencing practices and with parole, it was never the case
that those systems did not perform important positive functions.
Substantial policy changes that create more robust state efforts
to
support individuals during reentry will not only help them, but

their families and, if the coercive mobility thesis is correct, the
places they return to as well.
It may be tempting to suggest that those released not be
allowed to move back to the communities they lived in when
they got into trouble. But the simple truth is that most released
prisoners have no place to go other than the communities they
know. That is where their families and the people they know
are. The likely outcome of such relocation policies would be
less
successful reentry and greater recidivism. For example, restric-
tions in some states on where sex offenders can live has led to
increased homelessness in this population, making the task of
keeping tabs on them more difficult for officials.
Ultimately, the best way to reduce the collateral consequences
and the criminogenic effects of high rates of incarceration and
their subsequent negative effects for communities of color is to
reduce the number of people going into prisons and to create a
more just society. On the first front, President Barack Obama
recently commuted the sentences of 46 men and women who
were serving federal prison time for nonviolent drug offenses,
saying: “These men and women were not hardened criminals.
But the overwhelming majority had been sentenced to at least
20
years; 14 of them had been sentenced to life for nonviolent drug
offenses, so their punishments didn’t fit the crime.” These and
other overly punitive sentences neither serve justice nor protect
communities.
It is also clear that continued racial residential segregation
exacerbates existing inequalities and fosters severe social and
economic disadvantage. More robust enforcement of federal
and state fair housing laws will reduce the disparity between
minority and majority crime rates. Such action, along with
eliminating society’s over use of prisons to confront social

problems, will substantially reduce the effects of the collateral
consequences from incarceration and coercive mobility on
communities of color.
Robert D. Crutchfield is a professor in the Department of
Sociology at the University o f Washington. Gregory A. Weeks
is
a retired judge for the Fourth Division o f the Superior Court of
North Carolina.
FALL 2015 51
Copyright of Issues in Science & Technology is the property of
University of Texas at Dallas
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
Temple University
Film and Society - Dr. P.B Reagan
Writing Guidelines
Format and Guidelines:
· First and foremost, please refer to the course syllabus and the
readings listed on the course website and class notes and
discussions.
· The purpose of a Critical Review Essay is to evaluate the
work/film and provide a critical commentary on its contents. A
synopsis is not necessary.
Format of the Review.

1. Introduction: Identify the film you are going to review. The
director, title, date and place of production may be placed at the
beginning of the essay in the form of a “bibliographic” citation.
Then state what the director’s goal was in writing and or
directing the film. For example, Why did the director choose
this specific subject? What contribution to our understanding of
history, culture and society did the director, and actors intend to
make? How do we appreciate more Japanese culture? And …
2. Brief Summary: In the main body of the review, you should
begin by briefly describing content and organization, along with
the most important evidence used. Do not get bogged down in
details here; this section is only intended to prepare the reader
for the critical assessment to follow. Again, a detailed synopsis
is not necessary.
3. Critical Assessment: Evaluate the work’s contribution to our
understanding of history, culture and society. There are several
things you should look for:
a) Identify a central argument, or thesis. The thesis is not the
topic of the film but a specific argument that the author/director
has expressed about the subject. Sometimes, it is stated in the
introduction, sometimes in the conclusion. Feel free to review
these sections first to determine the main argument. Knowing
the main argument will help guide you through the rest of the
film. The focus at certain points highlights the director’s
intentions.
b) Identify perspective, point of view, or purpose. This can be
approached in a number of different ways. Ask yourself whether
there is a particular emphasis, such as economic, social or
humanitarian. Is the film informed by a social, historical, or
political ideology? If the film describes a conflict, does the
director, either explicitly or subtly, favor one side over the
other?
c) Look at the director’s evidence: what sources are used? Are

those sources balanced, reliable, and legitimate?
4. Conclusion: Assess the overall quality of the film. Does the
style or content of the film recommend it to a specific audience?
Offer a final evaluation: How valuable is it? How important is
it? Please do not “recommend” the film.
5. Final Evaluation: How does this work contribute to the field
of study? Was the film successful in realizing the objective and
targeted audience?
1
The Death of the War on Drugs
by Lawrence Jablecki
I
N HIS FIRST INTERVIEW as the nations new drug
czar, Gil Kerlikowske told the Wall Street Journal that
the phrase "war on drugs" should be retired because it
implies that citizens who use illegal substances are enemies
ofthe state to be conquered and destroyed. Instead of view-
ing the vast majority of these citizens as criminals deserv-
ing ot punishment, a new paradigm should embrace them
as members of our communities deserving of opportunities
to establish or renew healthy and productive lives.
There are certainly no new arguments available to
employ in support of or in opposition to current U.S. drug
policies. Instead, we are locked in an ideological contest
between two conflicting and not mutually exclusive philo-
sophical perspectives, both of which have existed for many
centuries. More specifically, the contest is between the per-
spective that a genuinely free society maximizes the rights

and freedoms of its citizens, in turn allowing them to think,
say, and act as they please as long as they don't harm or
injure their fellow citizens. The other perspective empha-
sizes the claim that a stable social order can't be maintained
in the absence ofthe legal enforcement of a rather long list
ofthe shared moral values of its citizens. In short, this con-
test is what the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher
David Hume called the perpetual struggle between the lib-
erty of the individual and the authority of the state. And
what can't be emphasized enough is that this isn't a strug-
gle between the armies of good and evil. Much too often,
defenders on both sides are persuaded that truth and jus-
tice are on theirs, and they have allowed their zeal to sink
to the level of inflammatory attacks on the motivation and
personal characteristics of their opponents. Regardless of
our moral stance on a cluster of very divisive issues, all of us
should heed the sage comments of the philosopher Isaiah
Berlin in his 1958 "Two Concepts of Liberty" lecture: "If,
as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them
are in principle compatible with each other, then the pos-
sibility of conflict—and of tragedy—can never be wholly
eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The
necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an
inescapable characteristic ofthe human condition."
I am enormously proud to be an American citizen and
wouldn't choose to live in another country. I am, however,
unequivocally ashamed that during the last thirty years, our
criminal justice policies (federal and state) have sealed our
identity as the nation that incarcerates a higher percent-
age of its population than any other country in the world.
The dominant crime control policies are driven hy a harsh
retributive view of punishment committed to the belief that
Si

E
a.
YEARS AGO...
C/assi'c Jiumanisi
Two books fresh off the press would merit little
attention except that the author of one and the
subject of the other is the re-election-seeking
incumbent of the White House. Abortion and
the Conscience of the Notion by Ronald Reagan
is hardly a book at all. It is a four-thousand-word
reprint of an article by Reagan fluffed out to wide-
margin, large-print pages with essays by Surgeon
Genera! C. Everett Koop and British curmudgeon
Malcolm Muggeridge, plus eight full-page photos
(Lincoln, Dred Scott, Mother Teresa, and so forth.)
Bob Slosser's "spiritual portrait" of Reagan, Reagati
Inside Out Is campaign puffery aimed at conser-
vative Christian audiences. The author shares the
Manicheaen delusion of the Radical Right—that
the world is locked in a struggle between light and
darkness, between an ultraconservative version of
Christianity on one side and "secular humanism"
on the other. "The president is a spiritually minded
person," Slosser quotes White House resident ethi-
cist Ed Meese as telling him, "but he has been scru-
pulously careful not to flaunt that or to use it in a
way that would allow it to appear that he's using
it for self-serving or political reasons." Anyone who
believes that probably also believes in the Easter
Bunny.

—Edd Doerr, "Church and State"
the only criteria are the seriousness of the offense and the
criminal history ofthe defendant. Making no claim to orig-
inahty, we have been beguiled by an addiction more power-
ful than all the drugs combined, namely, vengeance. This is
a bitter pill that honesty obliges us to swallow.
There is a wealth of scholarly bickering about the fea-
sibility of determining the actual number of non-violent
drug offenders in U.S. federal, state, and private prisons. In
his 2004 book, Thinking about Crime: Sense and Sensibil-
ity in American Penal Culture (Oxford University Press),
Michael Tonry makes the worthy claim that
Many thousands of people are serving decades long
sentences in federal prisons for non-violent drug
crimes. Their misfortune is to have been sentenced
in federal courts before avoidance of sentenc-
ing guidelines by federal judges and prosecutors
became common practice. Hundreds of thousands
of people, mostly but not only of minority and dis-
advantaged backgrounds, have spent much of their
young adulthood in prison for drug crimes. Their
misfortune is that unwisely, but for young people
not uncommonly, and typically as a result of peer
influences and teenagers' sense of invincibility, they
experimented with drug use, got hooked, and got
caught—in a time when antidrug policies were
unprecedentedly harsh.
It would be a major error in judgment to claim that the
tough law-and-order campaigns of those seeking to retain

or attain public office and well-financed lobbyists urging
the construction of more prisons, particularly private pris-
ons, were solely responsible for the realities presented by
Tonry. Members of Congress and state legislators would
not have been able to craft and pass harsh penalties with-
out the strong support of their constituents. Fortunately,
the opinions and sensibilities of a fast growing number of
our citizens are moving in the direction of believing that
the war of prohibition, eradication, and harsh penalties are
costing far too much in terms of human fatalities and con-
suming far too much of our federal and state resources.
Many groups of vocal dissenters using electronic mass
communication are focusing on these items for an agenda
for change: the medical use of marijuana; the de-criminal-
ization of the possession of small amounts of marijuana;
the still unresolved issue ofthe wide disparity in the dispo-
sition of cases involving crack and powder cocaine; access
to clean syringes to reduce the spread of HIV and hepatitis
C; and new medical research involving prescription heroin
or heroin replacements with the goals of improving health
and reducing crime.
The Uniform Crime Report of 2007 compiled by the
FBI contains the following data: ofthe over fourteen mil-
lion reported arrests, 1.8 million or 13 percent were for
drug abuse violations. Of those, 47.5 percent were for mari-
juana and of that number 89 percent were for possession,
the others involving the sale and manufacture or growing.
Three of every four persons in the group of drug violators
O
in
v
X)

o
Q
4 - '
Q.
YEARS AGO...
The humanist ¡s not engaged in defying God. Were it
not for the din of the "Back to God" campaigns, the
humanist would seldom ponder the question of God
at all. The problem he sets himself does not read
Given: God,
Required.lo do vi/Jthout Him.
On the contrary, his problem reads:
Given; Man as nature has produced him,
Required:To find ways to minimize [man's] defects,
release his intelligence, and foster his moral
capacities.
If the humanist takes no account of possible super-
natural influences, it is for the same reason that the
Christian does not reckon with the gods of India.
—E.C. Vanderlaan,
"Misgivings ofthe Half-Persuaded"
were under the age of thirty. It is a given that many thou-
sands in this group had a significant criminal history and
it is equally true that many thousands did not. This means

that many thousands of young offenders with no criminal
history are caught in the very wide net of criminal justice
and tbe majority of them must endure a grueling process of
adjudication which brands them witb a conviction and the
status of being a criminal.
A radical proposal, wbicb I believe is realistically fea-
sible, would retrain tbe same professionals wbo administer
our criminal justice systems to create so-called pre-pros-
ecution agreements which still send a message of societal
disapproval, but leave no permanent scars. The specific guts
of the proposal are as follows: all persons arrested for pos-
sessing small amounts of any illegal substance, excluding it's
sale or manufacture, wbo have no criminal history shall be
granted a one-time only pre-prosecution agreement not to
exceed one year. Within thirty days of accepting this agree-
ment, tbey shall complete a substance abuse evaluation by
a state-certified substance abuse counselor approved by tbe
local jurisdiction and follow any recommendations of said
counselor. Within thirty days of successful completion of
this agreement the local jurisdiction and the states crimi-
nal records division shall destroy and expunge all records of
the case, excepting a list of the participants. Any participant
who is arrested and convicted of any new criminal offense
before completion of tbe program is subject to prosecution
of the original offense.
Tbe prosecutors in every local jurisdiction of this coun-
try have the explicit or inherent authority to create these
programs and tbey certainly have
the discretionary authority to dis-
pose of numerous felony arrests by
using tbis option. I am not embrac-
ing the claim that people who vio-
late the criminal laws have any kind
of a rigbt that obliges tbe state to

provide a comprebensive menu of
services to fix the causes of their
iUegal conduct. I am claiming tbat
tbere is a compelling public interest
to do so.
Tbe demise of tbe war on drugs
can be accomplished if President
Obama musters the political cour-
age to use the presidential bully pul-
pit to win public and congressional
support for the National Criminal
Justice Commission Act of 2009 co-
authored by Senators Jim Webb (D-
VA) and Aden Specter (D-PA). The purpose of this com-
mission is to, in the words of the legislation, "undertake a
comprehensive review of tbe criminal justice system, make
findings related to current federal and state criminal jus-
tice policies and practices, and make reform recommen-
dations for tbe president. Congress, and state governments
to improve public safety, cost-effectiveness, overall prison
administration, and fairness in the implementation of the
nation's criminal justice system."
The commission will have eleven members, tbe cbair to
be appointed by President Obama and the other ten mem-
bers to be appointed by various elected officials. Hopefully,
tbe majority of tbese ten members will be private citizens
wbo are nationally recognized experts and wbose collective
experience embraces tbe specified areas of law enforcement,
criminal justice, national security, prison administration,
prisoner reentry, public bealtb (including drug addiction
and mental health), victims' rights and social services.
If this commission is enacted and its final product

receives strong public support and congressional approval,
it can deal a death blow to tbe present international percep-
tion that tbe United States is a rogue nation whose criminal
justice system is at war witb its own citizens. ES
Lav̂ írence Jablecki, PhD, is a lecturer in the Master of Liberal
Studies Program at Rice University and an adjunct professor
of philosophy in the prison program of the University of
Houston at Gear Lake. For eighteen years he was the
director of the adult probation department in Brazoria
County, Texas.
c a r t o o n Larry Wright
8 THE HUMANIST I September • October 2009
www.americanhumanl5t.org
The Consequences of Parental Incarceration for
African American Mothers, Children, and
Grandparent Caregivers
by
Dorothy Smith Ruiz, Ph.D.

Department of Africana Studies
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina 28223
(704) 687-2367
[email protected]
&
Albert Kopak, Ph.D.
Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, NC 28723
(828) 227-2328
[email protected]
Abstract
Mass imprisonment in the United States disproportionately
affects the country’s African
American population, and many of those who are incarcerated
are mothers. The existing
policies, which have led to an explosion in the number of
mothers who are serving time behind
bars, have also created a number of health-related and social
consequences for their children. If
this were not enough, caregivers of these children, who are
usually their grandparents, also feel
the effects of these policies when they assume guardianship
over their grandchildren. This paper
explores the extensive domino-effect of incarceration on

African American families leading up
to and following the point at which mothers become
incarcerated. Children who experience
maternal separation due to incarceration experienced heightened
risk for many negative
outcomes, including mental health issues, delinquency, and
victimization. Caregivers also
encounter significant hardship as they try their best to care for
children in the presence of
significant economic strain and health problems. Examples of
these situations are provided in
the form of accounts of African American caregivers and these
issues are discussed in terms of
policy implications and future research directions.
9
The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.7, no.6, November 2014
Introduction
Some 160 years since slavery was abolished in America, and
some 50 years after the
progress made during the Civil Rights movement, the language
used to describe the status of
African Americans remains remarkably unchanged (Feagin,
2010). African Americans continue
to be oppressed by a system of racialized formal social control:
the American criminal justice
system. Perhaps one of the most pervasive problems associated
with the discriminatory treatment

of African Americans by the criminal justice system is the
undeniably catastrophic effect mass
incarceration has on individuals and families, particularly
women and children, caregivers,
(especially grandparents); and Black communities at large. This
phenomenon is highlighted by
Marc Mauer, in Race to Incarcerate (2006), as incarceration is
identified as the predominant
reason behind “The fraying of family bonds the rising number
of children growing up with a
parent in prison, and the disrupted social networks in many
communities now threaten the
viability of those neighborhoods and the life prospects for the
next generation of children”
(Mauer, 2006, p. xiii).
Research studies have shown that African Americans, and
especially men, are
incarcerated at levels disproportionally higher than they were
25 years ago. In less than 30 years,
the incarcerated population in the United has risen dramatically
from 300,000 to more than 2.3
million; most of which is due to non-violent drug offenses
(Alexander, 2010; Tonry, 2011). This
phenomenon is partly the product of drug enforcement efforts
that disproportionately concentrate
on inner-city illicit drug markets, drawing young African
American men into the criminal justice
system (Butler, 2010; Miller, 1996). To make matters worse,
empirical evidence shows African
American men charged with drug related offenses fare worst on
a number of sentencing-related
factors and are more likely to spend a greater amount of time
imprisoned compared to their
White counterparts (Bontrager, Bales, & Chiricos, 2005;

Caravelis, Chiricos, & Bales, 2011;
Huebner & Bynum, 2008; Spohn & Sample, 2008). Ensnarement
into the system sets into
motion a cyclical arrest-incarceration process which few
African Americans manage to escape.
Major factors leading to the entrapment of African Americans in
the criminal justice
system include “get tough laws” of the 1970s, disparities in
sentencing, and mandatory minimum
sentences. All of these policies and practices contribute to high
rates of mass incarceration that
extend well beyond the ramifications of the actual crimes
committed (Garland, 2001a; Garland,
2001b). Severe restrictions in post-release housing options,
indefinite disenfranchisement, and
significant disruption in familial relationships are just a few of
these.
Existing research in this this area has mainly focused on the
experiences of incarcerated
parents rather than those of the families, children, and
caregivers they leave behind (e.g.,
Braman, 2002; Foster & Hagan, 2009; Visher, 2013).
10

The primary objective of this paper is to add to this body of
knowledge with a discussion of how
the incarceration and removal of African American mothers
from the family affects both their
children and, more often than not, grandmothers who care for
the children while the mother is
incarcerated. There are ripple effects that are felt among these
families and all family members
experience them, from the younger to the elder generations.
Only a direct recognition of the
nature and scope of this problem can help guide ameliorative
research and policy proposals.
Review of Literature
There is a glaring lack of literature devoted to a thorough
discussion of the effects of
incarceration on multiple generations within African American
families, and most of this work is
focused on the effect imprisonment has had on the relationships
between African American
fathers and their children (e.g. Modecki & Wilson, 2009;
Swisher & Waller, 2008; Swisher &
Roettger, 2012). The little work that has concentrated on how
incarceration has affected African
American families has been largely descriptive in nature and
has demonstrated the likelihood
that African American children experience parental
incarceration more than doubled from 1978
to 1990 (Western & Wildeman, 2009). Despite this enormous
increase in the number of African

American children who have a parent in prison and the negative
consequences that this has on
the family unit, researchers have not yet begun to fully
comprehend precisely how this comes to
bear on incarcerated mothers, their children, and the caregivers
who assume responsibility over
the children while mothers serve their prison sentences.
Recent Trends in the Incarceration of African American Women
The national crime rates have steadily declined since the 1990s,
although the incarcerated
population has continued to increase drastically (Bosworth &
Flavin, 2007; Smith & Hattery
2010). In spite of the slight reductions in prison population,
0.2% for males and 0.7% for
women, African American women represent approximately 30%
of all women incarcerated
under federal and state jurisdiction, and 16% for Hispanic
women. Blacks and Hispanics have
extraordinarily high incarceration rates; far exceeding the White
population (See Table 1). In less
than 30 years, the incarcerated population in the United has
rocketed from 300,000 to more than
2.3 million; most of which were due to non-violent drug
offenses (Alexander, 2010; Mauer,
2006). These rates have continued to lead to disparate
imprisonment among racial groups with
Black non-Hispanic females experiencing an incarceration rate
of 133 per 100,000 at the end of
2010, which was nearly 3 times higher than White non-Hispanic
females (47 per 100,000 of
White female residents).

11
Table 1: Estimated rate of sentenced prisoners under state and
federal jurisdiction per
100,000 U.S. residents, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin,
December 31, 2000 - 2010
===============================================
==
Male Female
_____________________________________________________
__________________________
Year Total White Black Hispanic Total White Black Hispanic
2000 904 449 3,557 1,220 59 34 205 60
2001 896 462 3,533 1,177 58 36 199 61
2002 912 450 3,437 1,176 61 35 191 80
2003 915 465 3,405 1,231 62 38 185 84
2004 926 463 3,218 1,220 64 42 170 75
2005 929 471 3,145 1,224 65 45 156 76
2006 943 487 3,042 1,261 68 48 148 81
2007 955 481 3,138 1,259 69 50 150 79
2008 952 487 3,161 1,200 68 50 149 75
2009 949 487 3,119 1,193 67 50 142 74
2010 943 459 3,074 1,258 67 47 133 77
_____________________________________________________
_____________

Table adapted from Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, - Prisoners in
2010. Washington, D.C.: Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 2011.
The number of women in prison spiked 646% between 1980 and
2010: from 15,118 to
112,797 (Phillips, 2012). Although this dramatic rise in the
number of female inmates clearly
indicates the female prison population has exploded in size over
the past 30 years, there have
been recent variations in the number of incarcerated women.
The rate of incarceration decreased
35% from 2001 to 2010 for Black women, but it has increased
28% for Hispanic women, and
38% for White women over the duration of this decade. This
decrease is promising, but it is
important to consider there are more than 205,000 presently
incarcerated (including those in
local jails), and more than 1 million under criminal justice
supervision (Phillips, 2012). This is an
enormous number of women, which are disproportionately
African American, and all are
currently experiencing the comprehensive and life-altering
consequences accompanied by
imprisonment. The disparity can easily be put into perspective
with the current figures that
clearly demonstrate Black women face the highest odds of
lifetime imprisonment. Specifically,
1 in 19 Black women in the U.S. will spend time in prison while
1 in 45 Hispanic women and 1
in 118 White women will be incarcerated. To make matter
worse, shockingly large numbers of
the incarcerated Black population are parents.

12
The Demographic Background of Incarcerated African
American Parents
According to the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal
Correctional Facilities (SISFCF)
(US Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS), 2004), the most recent
source of information on the incarcerated population in the
United States, forty three percent
(924,765) of all inmates incarcerated were African American
(Table 2). The majority, (82%;
435,642) were male, but a large number (18%; 53,481) were
women. A total of 55% (249,078)
of African American inmates (male and female combined)
reported they had at least one child
under the age of 18. This amounts to more than half (54%;
233,431) of incarcerated African
American male inmates and a similar proportion (59%; 15,647)
of female inmates who reported
they had at least one child under the age of 18 years, with most
having two children (m = 2.21, se
= .03). The mean age of incarcerated parents’ minor children
(<18 years of age) was estimated

at 8.87 years (se = .09).
Table 2. Demographic information for incarcerated African
American mothers and fathers
Female Male Total
Mean number of
children
2.39
(se = .05)
2.20
(se = .03)
2.21
(se = .03)
Unemployed 41% 30% 31%
Marital status
Never married 67% 64% 64%
Divorced/separated 16% 17% 17%
Widowed 2% 1% 1%
Married 15% 18% 18%
Homeless 15% 6% 8%
Education level
Less than high
school
60% 60% 60%
High school

graduate or
equivalent
25% 28% 28%
Beyond high school 15% 12% 12%
Estimated number of
incarcerated African
American parents
15,647 233,431 249,078
Note. Includes estimates for incarcerated African American
mothers and fathers of children under 18
years of age. Source: Survey of Inmates in State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, US Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004.
13
These data also clearly demonstrate incarcerated African
American mothers are distinctly
members of a disenfranchised, low income social class. With
such high levels of unemployment
(41% reported not currently working) and single relationship
status (67% were never married),
most were solely responsible for their own finances and

occupied an extremely impoverished
social position. Moreover, prospects for upward mobility for
mothers are depressing, given
nearly two-thirds (60%) had not completed high school (or an
equivalent level of formal
education). As a whole, incarcerated African American mothers
are among the poorest, least
educated, and socially stigmatized (given their criminal
conviction) people in America (Roberts,
2012). Most importantly, mothers do not choose to be
incarcerated. Most have reached their
current position through the racially charged enforcement of
certain types of laws.
How African American Mothers Become Incarcerated
There are two primary reasons for the explosion in the
incarceration of African American
mothers in the United States. The predominant reason African
American mothers are
incarcerated is directly related to the perpetual War on Drugs
(Alexander, 2010). This is
evidenced by the fact that the largest proportion of African
American mothers was incarcerated
for drug offenses (Bush-Baskette, 2010).
Drug offenses usually carry along with them mandatory
minimum and lengthy sentences.
This is the primary reason why incarcerated African American
mothers were sentenced, on
average, to spend 7.6 (se = .39) years in prison (US DOJ, BJS,
2004). This is especially

important to consider in the context of parenthood given the
mean age of mothers’ children was
10.2 years. This means mothers were going to be absent for 7.6
years during the most
formidable years of their children’s lives. Some policy
advocates may construe this as a
reasonable factor associated with the appropriate punishment of
a drug offender, but the reality
of this situation is ever-lasting when a mother is absent from a
child’s life for such a long amount
of time during this developmental period. It is also imperative
to consider most incarcerated
mothers are single, making them the financial breadwinner for
their children, which leaves
young children in a perilous situation. The majority of these
consequences stem from the
misdirected enforcement of drug laws (Bush-Baskette, 2010).
One personal example of how drug enforcement has targeted
African American mothers
is found as Shelden (2010) recounts the story of Regina, which
took place in Hearne, Texas.
Regina was a mother at the age of 13. In 2000, she was a 24-
year old single mother living in a
housing project with her 4 young daughters in rural east Texas.
She worked as a waitress and
needed government assistance to feed and house her family.
During a drug sweep, more than 28
residents of the housing project (primarily Black) were arrested
and charged with selling cocaine.
Regina handcuffed, arrested, and jailed on a felony charge
carrying a potential sentence of 20
years.

14
She had no record of drug arrests, and no drugs were found near
her when she was taken into
custody; but Texas law at the time deemed uncorroborated from
a single informant sufficient to
press charges. She refused to accept a plea bargain for a crime
she did not commit, although her
court appointed attorney suggested the felony plea with 10 years
probation was a gift. (Sheldon,
2010; p. 139)
Regina’s case was subsequently dropped. However, such cases
are regularly repeated all
over the country. A more recent case that has received national
attention is that of Marissa
Alexander (Marissa Alexander v. State of Florida, 2013). In
Florida, Marissa Alexander was
convicted of aggravated assault (classified as a violent felony)
for firing a shot from her legally
owned handgun into the ceiling. She was subsequently
sentenced to 20 years in prison and has
served more than three. Marissa is a mother and was separated
from her 3 children, one of which
was a newborn of only a few weeks at the time. She is highly
educated with a Master’s degree,
no prior criminal history, and was working at the time of the

incident. By all accounts, she has
achieved a middle class status, and an upstanding citizen with a
good record. She is currently
awaiting a decision on her appeal to the State on the grounds
the judge improperly informed the
jury of the conditions of her self-defense. Most importantly,
both of these cases involved
mandatory minimum sentences (e.g. 18:1 sentencing ratio for
crack v. powder cocaine; 10-20-
life statutes) which were influenced by race, class, and the
racial construction of crime (Bales &
Piquero, 2012).
The Impact of Parental Incarceration on Children
The likelihood that children will have an incarcerated parent is
disproportionately
connected to the race of the parents. More than 65,000 women
in federal and state custody are
mothers of some 147,500 minor children (Glaze & Maruschak,
2008). These mothers were
primary caregivers for their children with about 75% reporting
they had provided most of the
daily care for their children before incarceration (Snyder,
2009). Black children experience the
greatest likelihood for the family instability associated with the
imprisonment of a mother, which
is evidenced in the startling reality that they are 9 times more
likely than White children to have
a parent in prison (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
Although research has not yet deeply investigated these issues
among Black children, the

work that has been done has examined the deeper effects of
parental incarceration on children
which place children in this population at a greater risk for
negative outcomes (Foster, 2012;
Miller & Miller, 2014). Some of the factors closely associated
with having a parent incarcerated
include extreme poverty, high rates of violence, fragmented and
segregated communities, little
education, single-parent homes, racial inequality, and physical
and mental health disparities
(Dallaire, 2007; Sameroff et al., 1998).
15
Although these risk factors are present in urban African
American communities before the
incarceration of a parent, parental absence significantly erodes
the potential for protection
against the effects of these detrimental contextual factors. For
example, Murray and Farrington
(2005) found that young boys separated from their parents
because of incarceration experienced
more contextual risk factors, had an increased risk of
delinquency in late life, and had almost 5
times the risk for adult incarceration in comparison to 3 times
the risk for boys who were not
separated from their parents for reasons other than

incarceration.
Children who experience maternal separation due to
incarceration are also likely to
experience the adverse consequences associated with being
placed in unfamiliar environments
(Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002). This may intensify these
contextual risk factors, largely due to
the weakening of parent-child bonds, closer relationships with
potentially delinquent peers,
insecure attachment to adults, and diminished cognitive abilities
(Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003).
Although parental incarceration has different effects on
children, studies generally show negative
social and behavioral problems such as aggression, hostility,
high levels of anxiety and
depression, hostility, and withdrawal (Baunach, 1985;
Kampfner, 1995).
These abrupt and glaring changes in children’s’ caregiving and
family structures
represents a significant source of disruption in the child’s life.
Parental separation is one of the
more obvious effects on children and only a small proportion of
incarcerated parents have
contact with their children while serving their sentences.
Evidence shows only 34% of all
African American parents had any contact with their children
while they were imprisoned (US
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004).
Furthermore, only 32% of
incarcerated African American mothers had contact with their
children. And, many children
never get to see their parents at all. The frequency of this

contact should also be taken into
account because few mothers have direct regular contact with
their children. In fact, 43% of
those who reported they had some contact with their children
reported this contact took place in
the form of mail exchange at least once a week. A smaller
(36%) proportion of mothers who had
contact with their kids did so through telephone calls in the
same weekly time period, and far
fewer (17%) of those who reported their children had visited
them said they did so on a weekly
basis.
This information should not be interpreted to indicate children
do not reach out to their
incarcerated parents. In fact, it seems many children try to
maintain relationships with their
imprisoned parents. The majority (53%) of children of African
American incarcerated mothers
who actually had contact with their parents utilized both
telephone calls and personal visits to
stay connected with their parent. A minority (2%) only visited
and a fairly negligible portion
(7%) only used the telephone, but the vast majority took
advantage of these most personal forms
of contact to see and talk to their mothers (US DOJ, BJS, 2004).
16

Stigma and social isolation research reveals that children with
parents in prison are often
not accorded the social support and sympathy provided to
children who experience other types of
parental separation or loss, such as divorce or death (Arditti,
2005). Although existing research
shows that parental incarceration contributes to negative
outcomes among minor children, not
much is known about the direct causal relationships between
parental imprisonment and
behavioral and/or mental health outcomes. The little research
which has been done has shown
that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to drop out
of school, engage in
delinquency, become incarcerated themselves, or become
victimized (Dallaire, 2007; Johnston,
2006; Whelan, 1993).
The Impact of Incarceration on Grandmothers
Grandmothers are also impacted by the ripple effects created by
maternal incarceration.
For every mother who is incarcerated in the United States, there
are at least ten other people who
are directly affected; these include especially children and
caregivers, particularly grandmothers
(Golden, 2005; Ruiz, 2004b). This is supported by data which
indicate the largest proportion
(42%) of incarcerated African American mothers had children
living with a grandparent while
serving their sentence (US DOJ, BJS, 2004). Children living
with grandparents were followed in
sequence by those who lived with other relatives (24%), fathers

(17%), friends (10%), or
children living alone or with a person other than those in the
other categories (7%) (US DOJ,
BJS, 2004).
The primary reason indicated for assumption of care for
grandchildren was drug and
alcohol problems of grandchildren’s parents (45%). Other
reasons included parents’ neglect of
the grandchild’s needs (38%), need of parents to work (23%),
teenage pregnancy (18%), parent's
emotional or mental problems (17%), parent deceased (10%),
and parent incarcerated (12%).
Sixteen percent indicated other potential reasons, including
taking care of grandchildren because
of divorce, parents needing a break, parent's illness (AIDS or
physical disability), mental and
sexual abuse of child by parent, and school. Many grandparents
report taking care of their
grandchildren due to their parents’ economic problems and
difficulty obtaining housing (Hanlon,
Carswell & Rose, 2007; Ruiz, 2004a; Ruiz, 2004b; Turanovic,
Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012).
Two important patterns underlying caregiver role assumption
have been identified:
immediate assumption and gradual assumption (Ruiz, 2004b).
Immediate assumption reflected
the experiences of grandmothers who were thrust suddenly into
the custodial caregiving role
without previous warning. Examples of immediate caregiving
role assumption include the
biological parent (typically the mother) leaving the child in the
grandmother’s care and failing to

return, intervention by Social Services because the mother
neglects the child’s needs, discovery
by the grandmother that the child was left unattended for an
unreasonable period of time, and
incarceration of the parent.
17
Gradual assumption refers to grandmothers who had previous,
and sometimes regular,
experience caring for grandchildren, but eventually realize a
temporary situation has become
more or less permanent (Ruiz, 2004b). Examples of this form of
custodial assumption include
caring for grandchildren when at least one biological parent
sporadically lives in the
grandparents’ home, or caring for grandchildren while a parent
receives drug or alcohol
treatment.
A few case examples can clearly illustrate these experiences.
For example, Julie, a 47
year-old grandmother, has been the primary caregiver for her
three grandchildren since their
birth because of the drug use of their 31 year-old mother.
Although Julie is not pleased with the
placement, she believes that her decision was in the best interest

of her grandchildren. She was
concerned that she will have permanent responsibility for their
care and well-being:
I truly love my grandchildren, but I never wanted to become a
mother all over again. I
feel that I have taken on more than I can bear. It’s as if I have
lost my life. If I had to
make the choice to do it all over again, I don’t think I would.
This is not the way I
planned my life at this point. I am very resentful that I am in
this situation. I do not want
to take care of my grandchildren. It has caused me to become
depressed as well as put me
in poverty. It’s difficult to take care of a child on $72 a month.
I feel torn between letting
them go into foster care and keeping them. I don’t want to take
care of them, but I think
it’s my obligation. (Ruiz, 2008, p 40)
June, a 48 year-old grandmother, who has taken care of her
granddaughter since birth,
assumed immediate responsibility because of the consistent
emotional problems and neglect by
the child’s mother. Although taking care of her grandchildren is
an added responsibility for her,
she takes pride in knowing that they are safe: “I feel good
because I know they are being taken
care of well. I know where they are and what they are doing. At
first it was difficult, but I’ve
gotten comfortable now. They still bet on my nerves, but I am
fine generally” (Ruiz, 2008, p.

40).
June continues her discussion of the difficulties, obstacles, and
conflicts of caregiving.
She states:
I have no social life and no desire to take care of myself. I have
no freedom, and when I
have to leave them, I feel guilty. I have to work too hard to take
care of them. The
demands of taking care of my 10 year old granddaughter, who
has cancer, conflicts with
my work. I am concerned that I cannot be at home when they
come from school. I’m
having problems keeping up with my own health. I don’t like
having to spend most of my
money on them instead of myself (Ruiz, 2008, p. 41).
18
Missie, a 54 year old grandmother, shares her small home with
four grandchildren. She
assumed care of her grandchildren because their mother is using
drugs and neglected their needs.

She, like the vast majority of grandmothers, did not want her
grandchildren to go into foster care.
The role of custodial caregiver has presented a number of
problems and concerns for Missie. She
states:
Two-hundred and seventy one dollars a month is not enough to
take care of my
grandchildren. I had different plans for my life. I am not able to
do the things I want to
do, after raising my own children. I have to put what I want to
do on the back burner. I
am concerned about the health of my two grandsons (ages 7 and
12) who have serious
emotional problems. My seven- year old grandson weighs only
47 pounds. I have to dress
his for school and he cries every morning. I have to tell him
everything he has to do, and
he bothers other kids constantly. He runs through the house
constantly. He has had
emotional problems since birth. Both boys have a bad temper.
My health has gotten
worse because of them. I feel helpless. I cannot get essentials
for myself because of the
expense for my grandchildren. I need a break. (Ruiz, 2008, p.
41)
Custodial caregiving among African American grandmothers
may be a burden as well as
a blessing. While a majority of the grandmothers seem to enjoy
caring for their grandchildren,
grandmothers are nonetheless concerned about inadequate
financial support, poor health, the

need for respite care, being saddled with permanent childcare
responsibilities, and inadequate
housing. Many grandmothers had mixed feelings about having
responsibility for their
grandchildren’s care, and several do not at all enjoy being a
caregiver. They felt trapped in the
position and felt angry about grandchildren's care being thrust
onto them by either the children’s
parents or by social services (Ruiz, 2008).
Conclusion
The mass imprisonment of mothers since the 1980s has had a
devastating impact on the
structure and functioning of African American families, with
profound effects on children and
their social and cognitive development. Incarceration affects
children’s well-being and
compromises their life chances. Efforts to address the needs of
children through counseling and
program development must not neglect the needs of the
caregiver. The important role of African
American grandmothers has largely been ignored in the
literature as well as in the community.
Although many grandmothers take pride in caring for their
grandchildren, many do not relish the
role of custodial caregiver and lack the resources and skills
needed to deal with children with
different types of behavioral and health problems. This
extensive ripple effect which starts with
mass incarceration must not be understated. Imprisonment
impacts far more people than just a
mother who is serving time behind bars.

19
This better understanding of how maternal incarceration
impacts family networks has
significant implications for ameliorative policies and future
research. First, any policy initiatives
must emphasize the needs of the incarcerated mother, as well as
the children and caregivers.
Mass incarceration is a policy which must be viewed as a moral
issue where all voices are heard,
including those who are incarcerated, their children, caregivers,
and African American religious
and community leaders. Only after these voices are heard can
we as scholars more effectively
communicate these critical concerns and work them into our
research and teaching objectives.
This means we have the responsibility to continue debates and
to raise policy concerns in related
to this critical moral issue of why the U.S. is so punitive, and
why, as a nation, we incarcerate so
many of our citizens of color.
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in
the age of colorblindness. New
York: The New Press.

Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological
approach. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(2), 251 – 260.
Bales, W. D. & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Racial/ethnic
differentials in sentencing to incarceration.
Justice Quarterly, 29(5), 742 – 773.
Baunach, P. J. (1985). Mothers in prison. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction, Inc.
Bontrager, S., Bales, W., & Chiricos, T. (2005). Race, ethnicity,
threat and the labeling of
convicted felons. Criminology, 43(3), 589 – 622.
Bosworth, M. & Flavin, J. (2007). Race, gender, and
punishment: From colonialism to the war
on terror. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Braman, D. (2002). Families and incarceration. In M. Mauer and
M. Chesney-Lind (Eds).
Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass
imprisonment (pp. 117 – 135).
New York: The New Press.
Bush-Baskette, S. (2010). Misguided justice: The war on drugs
and the incarceration of black

women. New York: iUniverse, Inc.
20
Butler, P. (2010). Let’s get free: A hip-hop theory of justice.
New York: The New Press.
Caravelis, C., Chiricos, T. & Bales, W. (2011). Static and
dynamic indicators of minority threat
in sentencing outcomes: A multi-level analysis. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology,
27(4), 405 – 425.
Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A
comparison of risks for children and
families. Family Relations, 56(5), 440 – 453.
Feagin, J. R. (2010). Racist America: Roots, current realities,
and future reparations (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Foster, H. (2012). The strains of maternal imprisonment:

Importation and deprivation stressors
for women and children. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 221
– 229.
Foster, H. & Hagan, J. (2009). The mass incarceration of
parents in America: issues of
race/ethnicity, collateral damage to children, and prisoner
reentry. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623, 179 –
194.
Garland, D. (Ed). (2001a). Mass imprisonment: Social causes
and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Garland, D. (2001b). The meaning of mass imprisonment.
Punishment and Society, 3(1), 5 – 7.
Glaze, L. E. & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and
their minor children. (NCJ
222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Golden, R. (2005). War on the family: Mothers in prison and the
family they leave behind. New
York: Routledge.
Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., and Sabol, W. J. (2011). Prisoners
in 2010 (NCJ 236096).
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hanlon, T. E., Carswell, S. B., & Rose, M. (2007). Research on
the caretaking of children of
incarcerated parents: Findings and their service delivery
implications. Children and
Youth Services Review, 29(3), 348 – 362.
Hattery, A. J. & Smith, E. (2012). African American Families
Today: Myths & Realities.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
21
Hattery, A. J. & Smith, E. (2007). African American families.
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Huebner, B. M. & Bynum, T. S. (2008). The role of race and
ethnicity in parole decisions.
Criminology, 46(4), 907 – 938.
Johnson, E. L., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Children of incarcerated

parents: Cumulative risk and
children’s living arrangements. JCPR Working Paper #306.
Chicago: Joint Center of
Poverty Research, Northwestern University/University of
Chicago.
Johnston, D. (2006). The wrong road: Efforts to understand the
effects of parental crime and
incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(4), 703 – 719.
Kampfner, C. J. (1995). Post-traumatic stress reactions in
children of imprisoned mothers. In K.
Gabel & D. Johnston, (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents
(pp. 89 – 102). New
York: Lexington Books.
Mauer, M. (2006). Race to incarcerate (2nd ed.). New York:
The New Press.
Marissa Alexander v. State of Florida, No. 1D12-2469. (2013).
Retrieved from
http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/09-26-2013/12-
2469.pdf
Miller, J. G. (1996). Search and destroy: African American
males in the criminal justice system.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Modecki, K. L. & Wilson, M. N. (2009). Associations between

individual and family level
characteristics and parenting practices in incarcerated African
American fathers. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 18(5), 530 – 540.
Miller, M. K. & Miller, L. (2014). The search for therapeutic
solutions to maternal incarceration:
Promoting the wellbeing of children. In M. K. Miller, J.
Chamberlain, & T. Wingrove,
(Eds.). Psychology, law, and the wellbeing of children (pp. 173
– 191). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children.
(NCJ 182335). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment:
Effects on boys’ antisocial
behavior and delinquency through the life course. Journal of
Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 46(12), 1269 – 1278.
22

Nesmith, A. & Ruhland, E. (2011). Caregivers of children with
incarcerated parents. The Open
Family Studies Journal, 4, (Suppl 2: M4) 105 – 116.
Parke, R. D. & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2003). The effects of
parental incarceration on children:
Perspectives, promises, and policies. In J. Travis & M. Waul
(Eds.), Prisoners once
removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children,
families, and communities
(pp. 189 – 232). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Phillips, S. D. (2012). Fact sheet: Incarcerated women.
Retrieved from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Incarcera
ted_Women_Factsheet_
Dec2012final.pdf
Roberts, D. E. (2012). Prison, foster care, and the systemic
punishment of Black mothers. UCLA
Law Review, 59, 1474 – 1500.
Ruiz, D. S. (2002). The increase in incarcerations among
women and its impact on the
grandmother caregiver: Some racial considerations. Journal of
Sociology and Social
Welfare, 29(3), 179 – 197.

Ruiz, D. S. (2004a). Amazing Grace: African American
grandmothers as caregivers and
conveyers of traditional values. Connecticut: Praeger.
Ruiz, D. S. (2004b). Custodial African American grandmothers:
Reasons for caregiving and
assumption of the caregiver role. African American
Perspectives, 10(1), 152 – 159.
Ruiz, D. S. (2008). African American grandmothers providing
extensive care to their
grandchildren: Socio-demographic and health determinants of
life satisfaction. Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare, 35(4), 29 – 52.
Sameroff, A.J , Bartko, W.T., Baldwin, A., Baldwin, C., &
Seifer, R. (1998). Family and social
influences on the development of child competence. In C.
Feiring & M. Lewis (Eds.),
Families, risk and competence (pp. 161-185). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shelden, R. (2010). Our punitive society: Race, class, gender
and punishment in America.
Illinois: Waveland Press.
Smith, E. & Hattery, A. (2010). African-American Men and the

Prison Industrial Complex.
Western Journal of Black Studies, 34(4), 387-398.
Snyder, Z. K. (2009). Keeping families together: The
importance of maintaining mother-child
contact for incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice,
19(1), 37 – 59.
23
Spohn, C. & Sample, L. L. (2008). The dangerous drug offender
in federal court: Intersections of
race, ethnicity, and culpability. Crime & Delinquency 59(1), 3 –
31.
Swisher, R. R. & Roettger, M. E. (2012). Father’s incarceration
and youth delinquency and
depression: Examining differences by race and ethnicity.
Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 22(4), 597 – 603.
Swisher, R. R. & Waller, M. R. (2008). Confining fatherhood:
Incarceration and parental

involvement among nonresident White, African American, and
Latino fathers. Journal of
Family Issues, 29(8), 1067 – 1088.
Thompson, H. A. (2010). Why mass incarceration matters:
Rethinking crisis, decline, and the
transformation in postwar American history. Journal of
American History, 97(3), 703 –
734.
The Sentencing Project. (2007). Women in the criminal justice
system. Retrieved from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/womenincj_t
otal.pdf
Schirmer, S., Nellis, A., & Mauer, M. (2009). Incarcerated
parents and their children: Trends
1991-2007. Retrieved from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/
inc_incarceratedparents.
pdf
Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American
dilemma. New York: Oxford
University Press, Inc.
Turanovic, J. J., Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The
collateral consequences of

incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on
caregivers of children of
incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50(4), 913 – 959.
US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004).
Survey of inmates in state and
federal correctional facilities, 2004 [Data file]. Ann Arbor, MI:
Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Visher, C. A. (2013). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from
prison to home. Criminal Justice
Policy Review, 24(1), 9 – 26.
Western, B. & Wildeman, C. (2009). The Black family and mass
incarceration. The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1),
221 – 242.
Whelan, R. (1993). Broken homes and battered children.
London: Routledge.
24

Copyright of Journal of Pan African Studies is the property of
Journal of Pan African Studies
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
EXUM_FINAL.DOC 11/16/2011 3:47 PM
881
SENTENCING, DRUGS, AND PRISONS:
A LESSON FROM OHIO
Jelani Jefferson Exum*
RISON overcrowding has become a familiar story. Current data
shows
that more than 1 in 100 adults in America—over 2 million
people—are
incarcerated, earning the United States the distinction of having
the highest
incarceration rate in the world.1 It should not be a surprise,
therefore, that state
and federal prisons are reaching and exceeding capacity. Nor
should it be a
shock that drug offenders take up many of the beds in those
overcapacity prisons.
Relative to other crimes, drug sentencing in the United States

has been
increasingly harsh since the 1970s, and the prison population is
feeling the
effects of that overly punitive approach.2 In 1980, 40,000
people were
imprisoned in America for drug crimes; however, that number
jumped to 450,000
in 2005.3 Incarceration at these rates is an incredibly expensive
enterprise. In
fiscal year 2009, states spent a total of $52.3 billion on
corrections, including
building and operating prisons.4 With the current economic
crisis and state
budgets being stretched thin, the costs of maintaining an ever-
growing prison
* Visiting Associate Professor, University of Michigan Law
School; Associate Professor of
Law, University of Kansas. The ideas in this paper were
presented as part of the “Overview:
Where We Are and How We Got Here” panel at the Ohio
Sentencing Policies and Practices, Costs
and Consequences symposium sponsored by the Toledo Law
Review on Feb. 18, 2011) (Douglas
Berman, Margaret Cole Love, and Cecelia Klingele, co-
panelists).
1. PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, COLLATERAL COSTS:
INCARCERATION’S EFFECT ON ECONOMIC
MOBILITY 3 (2010),
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_Incarceratio
n.pdf. See
also Adam Liptak, Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations,
N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 23, 2008, at A1
available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html (“The

United States has less
than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a
quarter of the world’s prisoners.”).
2. MARC A. LEVIN, BUCKEYE INST. FOR PUB. POLICY
SOLUTIONS, SMART ON CRIME: WITH
PRISON COSTS ON THE RISE, OHIO NEEDS BETTER
POLICIES FOR PROTECTING THE PUBLIC 6 (2010)
[hereinafter SMART ON CRIME], available at
http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/uploads/files/buckeye-
smart-on-crime(1).pdf. Further, in 2000, the average sentence
for a drug crime in the federal
system was 75.6 months while the average sentence for all
federal felony was 58 months. U.S.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DEP’T OF JUSTICE,
NCJ 189737, FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASE
PROCESSING, 2000 WITH TRENDS 1982-2000, at 12 tbl.6
(2001), available at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fccp00.pdf.
3. SMART ON CRIME, supra note 2, at 6.
4. NAT’L ASS’N OF STATE BUDGET OFFICERS, STATE
EXPENDITURE REPORT, FISCAL YEAR
2009, at 54 (2010), available at
http://www.nasbo.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=w7RqO74llEw
%3d&tabid=79.
P
882 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42
population are becoming impossible to sustain, prompting
government officials
to start discussing solutions.5

For the most part, the discourse on how to handle the prison
overcrowding
dilemma has been approached as a reactive policy matter. State
governments
have discussed whether it is safer or more efficient to begin
releasing nonviolent
prisoners or to increase the rate of good time accrual to shorten
the portion of
sentences that are actually served.6 Policymakers and
legislators have even
raised the possibility of building more prisons or adding prison
beds.7 Yet, there
has been reluctance to adjusting the front-end laws of
sentencing as a lasting
solution to the prison overcrowding situation.8 Though the idea
of drug
treatment programs as an alternative to incarceration has been
discussed in
several states, officials in only a few states are beginning to
discuss such reforms
as long-term sentencing law and policy shifts rather than as
short-term solutions
couched in the current budgetary concerns.9 This essay focuses
on drug laws in
5. See generally, e.g., Symposium, Ohio’s Sentencing Policies
and Practices, Costs and
Consequences, 42 U. TOL. L. REV. 859 (2011).
6. See Editorial, Indiana’s Answer to Prison Costs, N.Y.
TIMES, Jan. 17, 2011, at A24,
available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18tue2.html
(discussing Indiana
Governor Michigan Daniels’s approach to sentencing and parole

reform). See also Heather Gillers,
Daniels-Backed Prison Reform Is Dealt a Blow by Prosecutors,
INDIANAPOLIS STAR, Feb. 15, 2011,
at A1, available at
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110215/NEWS05/102150376/
1001/
SPORTS0107/Daniels-backed-prison-reform-dealt-blow-by-
prosecutors?odyssey=nav|head
(quoting member of the Indiana Senate’s Corrections Committee
as saying, “We just don't accept
the idea that because the Department of Correction has a bed
problem that we should be releasing
serious felons back on the street.”).
7. See, e.g., Mary K. Reinhart, Budget Woes Could Spur
Sentencing Reforms, ARIZ.
GUARDIAN, Oct. 11, 2010 (on file with the University of
Toledo Law Review) (explaining that
Arizona’s fiscal year 2011 budget includes funding for 6,000
additional prison beds and a 2,000-
bed expansion of a private prison).
8. John Murphy, the head of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys
Association, has been quoted as
saying, “You don’t write sentences to fit the budget.” See Alan
Johnson, Treatment, Not Prison,
Now Is Looking Good, COLUMBUS DISPATCH (Feb. 3, 2011,
02:56 AM) [hereinafter Johnson,
Treatment, Not Prison],
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/0
2/03/copy/
treatment-not-prison-now-is-looking-good.html.
9. See generally MARC LEVIN, TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM: LOWER CRIME, LOWER
COSTS (2010), available at
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2010-01-PP04-
justicereinvestment-
ml.pdf (explaining that Texas has undergone sweeping criminal

justice reforms designed to
produce long-term reductions in crime as well as costs). See
also Editorial, supra note 6
(explaining that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has proposed
reforms that would include a
restructured parole system and drug treatment for addicts).
Oklahoma is also an example of a state
that has been framing its proposed criminal justice reforms in
terms of budget necessities. See Tom
Lindley, Oklahoma Lawmakers Seek to Strike Budget Balance
for Prisons, OKLAHOMAN, Dec. 5,
2010, http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-seek-to-strike-
budget-balance-for-prisons/
article/3520793 (quoting Oklahoma Speaker of the House, Kris
Steele, as saying, “I can tell you
from a fiscal standpoint … (and) from a human resource
standpoint we are going to have to do
something different”). The same is true in Arizona where Rep.
Cecil Ash, the chair of a legislative
committee studying sentencing, has been quoted as saying, “The
purpose isn’t to let people out of
prison early; the purpose is to stop wasting resources.” Dianna
M. Náñez, Arizona Mandatory-
Sentencing Laws Targeted, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Nov. 18, 2010,
http://www.azcentral.com/
arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/11/18/20101118arizona-
mandatory-sentencing-laws.html. See
also Alan Johnson, Prison Reform Awaits Kasich, COLUMBUS
DISPATCH (Dec. 12, 2010, 03:02
Summer 2011] A LESSON FROM OHIO 883

Ohio in order to emphasize the importance of thinking about
sentencing
decisions’ long-term consequences when determining
sentencing laws on the
front-end. First, this essay explains the current problem of
prison overcrowding
in greater depth. The essay then turns specifically to the
sentencing of drug
offenses in Ohio, using federal drug sentencing as a point of
comparison.
Ultimately, this essay concludes that the atmosphere in Ohio is
ripe for
readjusting sentencing attitudes so that the consequences of
sentencing become
proactive lawmaking concerns rather than after-the-fact
reactions to a current
economic situation.
I. PRISON OVERCROWDING: THE CURRENT PROBLEM
Prison systems throughout the nation, including the federal
system, are
experiencing massive strain. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
reported that as of
December 2008, “[t]hirteen states and the federal system
operated at more than
100% of their highest capacity, and 19 states operated at
between 90% and
99%.”10 Recent statistics are not any better. In October 2010,
news stories
reported that Kansas had officially run out of beds for its male
prisoners.11 It has
been projected that by 2020, Kansas will be nearly 2,000
prisoners over
capacity.12 A month later, reports out of West Virginia
revealed that some of

their inmates now have to sleep on mattresses on the floor of
the local jails to
help absorb some of the state prison overflow.13 Florida is
feeling the crunch as
well, with approximately 102,000 people in prison and a budget
of $2.4 billion to
figure out how to deal with them.14 Arizona has a total
population of close to 6.5
million but a prison population of 40,000 inmates—an estimated
10 times greater
than it was 30 years ago.15 Indiana’s prison count has grown
by a stunning 41%
between 2000 and 2009, with 55% of prison admissions in 2008
being property
or drug offenders.16 The Oklahoma Department of Corrections
has sought
AM) [hereinafter Johnson, Prison Reform Awaits Kasich],
http://www.dispatch.com/live/
content/local_news/stories/2010/12/12/copy/prison-reform-
awaits-kasich.html (quoting Ohio
Governor-elect John Kasich as saying, “But corrections reform
is critical. It's one of the big cost
sinks that we have.”).
10. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP’T OF
JUSTICE, STATE AND FEDERAL PRISON
FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS, available at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=133 (last
visited Apr. 5, 2011).
11. Joe Lambe, With More Prisoners and No Place to Put
Them, Kansas Faces Tough
Choices, KAN. CITY STAR, Oct. 9, 2010, at A1, available at
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/
10/09/2294825/with-more-prisoners-kansas-faces.html.
12. Id.

ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD GREGORY A. WEEKSThe E ffe c ts o .docx

ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD GREGORY A. WEEKSThe E ffe c ts o .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from joellemurphey

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD GREGORY A. WEEKSThe E ffe c ts o .docx