The book is based on a study on the lives of forty young men in Oakland, California either involved in crime or associated with it in one way or another. These boys’ lives are full of harsh, discriminatory and humiliating forms of punishment with most of them getting lost in the criminal justice system, others getting killed with a few managing to escape the cycle. His main aim is to show how the current system of punishment has failed to rehabilitate these youths from delinquency and even caused them to get involved deeper with the very crimes it purports to prevent. This he does to show that there is a need for the whole community to look into other less punitive and more rehabilitative ways of dealing with these youths if any rehabilitation is to be witnessed. The book is mainly targeted at the people the author believes help propagate this harsh system of punishment; Parents and community members, the education system, and the entire justice system from police, courts and even probation officers all of whom have been more keen on labeling and punishing these young boys rather than rehabilitating them in the hope.
Rios collects his data by recruiting a number of boys; the first eight through reference by some community workers then he asks these boys to introduce him to others either participating or surrounded by the same delinquent behaviors but not working with the community organizations. Through this snowballing type of sampling he’s able to get forty boys aged fourteen to seventeen whom he shadows as they go on with their daily lives although he loses touch with eight of the boys leaving him with thirty-two of them. Rios uses observation to gather his data during shadowing as well as informal interviews where he would sit with the boys either on one-on-one or group sessions and get their experiences. He also had informal interviews with police officers although he focused more on getting the boys’ perspective. This was done over a period of three years.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the eyes of the media and public imagination, life in the flatlands is “… synonymous with violence, poverty, drugs, gangs and hopelessness.”(24). A discovery channel documentary, Gang Wars: Oakland , had even been done earlier in 2009 claiming the presence of thousands of gang members in Oakland who had converted the neighborhoods Rios was studying to a killing zone. This image was not helped when four police officers were gunned down by Lovelle Mixon, a young black man, who was later gunned down as well by police. Rios however disputes this notion claiming that despite having the fourth-largest crime rate in the country, most young people in Oakland lived normal productive lives not necessarily engaging in criminal activities.
Rios brings forward several concepts at work in this neighborhood such as criminalization/ labeling, racial segregation and poverty. The lives of the young men revolve around these concepts. Criminalization is a daily part of the lives of young people in Oakland where they are labeled as criminals/ delinquents, policed and harassed. In 2009, Rios had witnessed an incident where a highway patrol officer dragged a teenage black girl infront of Heavenscourt Middle School, over one mile away from the nearest highway. It’s a wonder what he was even doing there or if he had jurisdiction to act in that area. The girl fell to the ground and despite being in handcuffs, the officer continued dragging her with her arms and face scraped on the asphalt (27). Such was the treatment youths in the area were used to from police.
Racial segregation was evidenced in the neighborhoods with specific races being concentrated in specific areas. The South East Asian community comprised of mainly Cambodians occupied the area between 14th and 19th avenue developing their small tight-knit community complete with their own gangs to “protect” themselves from the larger Black and Latino gangs. The Mexican community could be found as from the 20th Avenue to 54th Avenue, arguably the most densely populated area of Oakland while majority of the Black residents could be located as from the 55th Avenue through to the 98th Avenue as you moved further east. Majority of the white residents lived in the hills or foothills and were a rare population in the Flatlands.
Poverty was prevalent going hand in hand with the racial segregation patterns with blacks living in poverty at 30 percent, Latinos 16 percent and whites at 5.2 percent. Around the East 14th street that Rios was studying, 33% of the resident population there lived below the poverty line and was characterized by the dilapidated buildings boarded up with plywood (25-28).
Rios used a largely microscopic approach in his research deciding to shadow the lives of only the thirty two boys. From the beginning he acknowledges that the boys in his study were not a representative sample of Black and Latino youths across the country, within Oakland or even the criminal justice system. “These were unique cases of young men from unique communities who were seen to live in an environment where criminalization was an everyday part of their lives” (11). He admitted it was hard to generate a representative sample of youth facing the same predicament and thus decided to go on the micro approach to achieve the in-depth study he desired.
This micro approach to the study enabled Rios to observe, in real time, the experiences the young men went through instead of relying on hearsay thus getting a real and in-depth analysis of the situation. If he had gone with interviewing law enforcement officers and other social-control agents he would have presented a broader perspective on criminalization and punishment but these would not have brought forward the perspectives of the youth experiencing the criminalization. These personalized but common perspectives are what Rios was able to bring forward by using a micro approach since they normally do not feature in public discourse where law enforcement agents are usually the ones being interviewed.
One clear example of these perspectives was when Rios was shadowing Slick and they were stopped by police officers next to a taco vendor and ordered to sit on the curb and handcuffed. No communication was given as to why they were being held even after Rios had asked the officers. When Slick told the officers who Rios was, they unlocked the handcuffs and let them go with a warning to Slick to stay out of trouble and this happened regularly according to Slick, “Shit! Come on, Vic! You know wassup. It happens every day,” (4). This regular harassment by police is not a perspective that would have been brought forward had he gone for the broader approach. His approach also enabled him to highlight Tyrell’s story where he felt he was always getting picked on by police because of his height and imposing figure. Rios watched and heard about Tyrell being stopped by police twenty-one times and even having a gun pulled on him simply because the police felt threatened by him (50). These firsthand experiences and perspectives are what Rios wanted to be brought out and he succeeded in doing exactly that. This was necessary if he was to put out a true perspective of what the young men felt about the criminalization that Rios was researching on.
The author’s description of Oakland resembles that of the city of Cleveland. They both are multiracial cities with a strong Black presence. The social life described by Rios of youths hanging outside in the streets, some engaging in illegal trade, prostitution and drug abuse is a scenario that can be seen in some parts of Cleveland. Crime rates and gang-related violence are also high in Cleveland with most gangs having a strong racial bearing where the different gangs feel like they are protecting their own. Racial segregation is also evident in both with Cleveland having a nearly distinct separation of Black and White neighborhoods.
Rios presented a subjective rather than objective view of Oakland’s population. Choosing Oakland as his research spot was good given its racial and crime statistics but he went further and chose the very streets he grew up in to conduct the research introducing an element of bias. Even when choosing his study subjects, he zeroed in on delinquent young men or those involved with delinquency meaning we missed the perspective of those not associated with delinquency further eroding objectivity in the paper. This was however intentional since Rios had already stated that he was after the perspective of the youth who were living these criminalized lives.
His analysis is therefore credible and believable despite his subjectivity since he was only keen on bringing out the perspectives of boys with the same lives as the ones he studied. His method of study where he shadowed the boys everywhere gaining their trust meant that he was able to witness firsthand their experiences and perspectives adding to his credibility. The fact that law enforcement officers also corroborated parts of his criminalization theory lends him further credence.
I believe the book is a good read since it brings out the unheard perspective of the youth who feel oppressed by the social and justice system. For instance, Emiliano, a former gang member, viewed punishment as a “central struggle for young, poor people of color” (40). Most of these young men reacted to this punishment by resisting the people they felt perpetuated it thus the need to go against authority and this is a scenario that is replicated across the country in various cities. Those lucky enough to encounter less harsh forms of control, usually outside the normal justice system, form the majority of those who escape the cycle of crime in their communities. The book emphasizes the need for alternative and more rehabilitative means of interacting with the youth in crime-prone neighborhoods if we are to allow them a chance to reform and contribute positively to the community and it is a notion I agree with.
References
Rios, Victor M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys.
