Mass incarceration, which created the demand for private prisons in America has been built on the backs of poor Americans. In the US criminal justice system, poor people and those from ethnic minority groups lose because they are selectively targeted across the board, from the law enforcement agencies to the legislators, and the prosecutors. In the critique of rights, Gideon held that legal rights are indeterminate and incoherent (Butler, 2012). As a result, the situation for most of the poor Americans has continued to worsen. Though Gideon v. Wainwright was seen as a major step forward in the American criminal justice system, as it provided a legal precedent to ensure fairness for poor Americans and those from minority groups, the optimism has largely died out (Butler, 2012).
In the US, wealthy people are rarely incarcerated. On the other hand, prisons are full of poor and uneducated people. According to (Butler, 2012), over 70% of inmates incarcerated in state prisons never graduated from high school and only 13% attended any formal education past high school. In comparison, high school drop outs are more likely to be incarcerated than individuals who graduated from college (Butler, 2012). Therefore, poor people lose in the American criminal justice system because the prisons were designed to hold them. This paper aims to justify the statement by answering the following question:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What are the contributing factors to the increased rates of incarceration in the US and the apparent racial and socioeconomic disparities among the poor, minority groups, or both?
The Beginning: How the Poor and Minority Groups Lose in the American Criminal Justice System
Twenty years after Gideon , two trends have started to emerge in the US criminal justice system. First, the country’s incarceration rate increased dramatically, followed by a demand in the privatization of correctional facilities. Since the 1960, the US imprisonment rate has continuously grown unprecedentedly. According to Butler (2012), the US imprisonment rate in the 1960s was 126 people per 100,000. By 2008, the rate had more than quadrupled to 600 people per 100,000 in the American population. Unfortunately, the incarceration rate was not distributed equally among the races and ethnic groups in America. According to Butler (2012), black males made up a significant portion of the total inmates in the American prison system, both private and federal correctional facilities.
Secondly, the growth in the incarceration rates was accompanied by an exponential increase in racial disparities in incarceration. Butler (2012), in his paper Poor people lose: Gideon and the critique of rights goes ahead and describes two key demographic characteristics of people who go through the American criminal justice system and end up in the prisons. First, these individuals are poor. Secondly, the individuals are mainly from racial minorities, like African Americans and Latinos. Alone, these two factors disadvantage the victims. Poverty and race interact in dynamic ways to amplify racial inequalities in the criminal justice system. However, when the factors are combined, a better picture about the increase in mass incarceration rates in America is obtained. It still remains to be answered whether the poor defendants who go through the criminal justice system are mistreated because they hail from minority groups (especially black males) or if “the black defendants treated unfairly because many of them are poor” (Butler, 2012). After all, America has a history of mistreating, marginalizing, and oppressing minority groups (Wyatt et al., 2020).
Regardless of the answer, a more pertinent question remains: what contributed to the systematic targeting of the poor and blacks to become victims of the criminal justice system and eventual guests at private correctional facilities? Butler (2012) blames American leaders who, since the Nixon Administration, implemented the tough-on-crime policies. These policies started by increasing law enforcement activity and scrutiny in low income neighbourhoods, those where African Americans lived, or both (which was often the case). These people were the victims of unequal policing, where they were more likely to be stopped and arrested by the police for minor infractions. As these individuals were introduced to the criminal justice system, they were assumed guilty and became part of a crime control system (Roberts, 2018). Instead of pursuing the law, prosecutors started to use different legal apparatus to coerce guilty pleas then punishing the individuals (Butler, 2012). In other words, being poor, black or both was the first step in increasing the mass incarceration rates in the US, which created the market for private prisons.
The Middle: Inquisitorial Justice System where Prosecutors are Kings
The tough-on-crime policies did their job by delivering the poor and largely African American victims to the criminal justice system. After all, before being sent to prison, any American has to pass through its courts. The problem is, the courts are largely unfair to these individuals. This section explains how being poor (regardless of race or ethnic background) is a virtual guarantee that one will end up incarcerated.
Everything begins with how the justice system was designed to operate and the values it was meant to uphold. According to Bright & Sanneh (2013), the US operates an adversarial justice system. Therefore, the “prosecution and defense will each conduct investigations, analyze evidence, select witnesses, argue law, and present partisan advocacy to a neutral factfinder” (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). The system, therefore, understands that there are at least two sides to any criminal case and representing them fairly allows for a clear image of the truth to emerge. The only condition required for an adversarial system to uphold its values is that there needs to be no significant differences between the skills and resources available to bot the prosecution and defense.
Unfortunately, getting justice in America requires resources, especially money. Defendants are largely required to retain highly skilled lawyers, pay for the investigations, the expert witnesses, and other expenses that are incurred in defending oneself within an adversarial system. Therefore, only wealthy individuals and rich companies can afford to pay for these costs and expenses to get justice. If the defendant lacks the financial resources, they will be assigned a public defender, who often lacks the time and resources to efficiently investigate and mount a strong defense (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). However, the inquisitorial nature of the justice system comes into play due to the differences between prosecutors and the defense.
It was noted earlier that for the adversarial system to work, both the prosecutor and defense need to play on a level field. In the American Justice system, however, prosecutors are the kings due to the power they wield and with no oversight. For instance, while most public defenders lack resources, prosecutors have access to the law enforcement agencies who can conduct investigations at their behest, government labs equipped with forensic analysts and their tools, and the power to subpoena witnesses (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). These advantages, however, pale compared to the power prosecutors wield in the criminal justice system. Not only can they reward witnesses for testifying (such as granting immunity), but they also can dismiss charges, reduce them, or even influence decisions by sentencing judges. Most importantly, however, prosecutors can:
Decide whether to charge, what to charge, whether to charge in state or federal court or both, whether to allow defendants to enter diversion programs, whether to agree to pretrial release as part of a plea bargain, and whether to grant immunity. They can overcharge defendants in order to increase their bargaining power. They may seek the death penalty or other enhanced penalties and mandatory minimum sentences (Bright & Sanneh, 2013, p.2158).
On the other hand, the defense’s capabilities are limited due to the unequal distribution of power and resources. According to Bright & Sanneh (2158), when representing poor defendors, the defense rarely conducts an investigation. The question remains, however, of what happens to the ethics that guide the conduct of prosecutors and defendors. According to Bright & Sanneh (2159), no disciplinary measure is taken against violations. The prosecutors exercise their power with no oversight or accountability. In other words, the criminal justice system makes it impossible for the defendants to win because it does not “require prosecutors to reveal the basis for their charging decisions, even when the decisions produce racial disparities” (Bright & Sanneh, 2013, p.2159).
The End: The Complicity of the Courts
Trials are not the only way criminal cases, especially against poor and black defendants are settled by sending a majority of them in prison. A significant number of other cases are settled out of court, with the defendants largely pleading guilty to crimes they sometimes never committed. Part of the rights any American is entitled to is the right to legal representation. If they cannot afford it, the state or federal government will be responsible for providing one. Unfortunately, poor Americans have stayed in jail for up to years without a lawyer. When they are assigned one, the public defender is often too busy to manage a large caseload that they cannot spare extra time for the defendant. With no investigation conducted, the defendants are exploited by the prosecutions to accept guilty plea bargains regardless of their actual innocence. If they reject the guilty pleas, the prosecutors threaten them with overblown charges. Due to the lack of oversight and accountability, the prosecutors have the freedom and leverage to act on their threats and get what they wanted. In the end, the defendant loses and joins their peers in prison because they were poor.
However, a more concerning outcome is that a defendant does not need a lawyer to be sentenced. According to Bright & Sanneh (2013), prosecutors and judges routinely ignore the defendant’s right to counsel. In 2011, for instance, 70% of defendants in misdemeanor cases made guilty pleas in Florida or did not contest the charges brought up against them at arraignments (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). Of these defendants, a third lacked legal representation. While some were unaware of their right to counsel (ignorance which the prosecutors and judges took advantage of), others were encouraged to waive their right to counsel. These defendants were even handed the forms during proceedings (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). Furthermore, a national study conducted in 2009 revealed that in misdemeanor cases, judges actively encouraged the defendants to plead guilty in the absence of legal representation (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). Furthermore, the prosecutors were reported to talking directly to the defendants and encouraging to accept guilty pleas in the absence of their lawyers. This shows an open disregard for the rights of the Americans because they are poor and in a weakened position.
Furthermore, the courts are continuously contributing to the increased incarceration rates by remaining insensitive to other social factors, like the poverty of the defendants. It is more likely that the poor continue to lose in the criminal justice system and ending up in prison because they cannot afford lawyers. Besides, some of the defendants become discouraged to exercise their right to representation due to the unaffordable application fees for a public defender (Bright & Sanneh, 2013).
Bright & Sanneh (2013) document the case of Hills McGee, a veteran who was arrested for public drunkenness and obstruction of the law. Mr. McGee only source of revenue was a monthly $243 disability payment from the Veterans Administration. The court, however, did not inquire into the defendant’s financial situation. Due to the fact that Mr. McGee was unable to pay the $50 fee for a public defender, he plead guilty without legal representation. The judge imposed a $200 fine and an additional $70 in fees and surcharges (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). Unable to pay the fine, the judge advised the defendant to pay the fine in instalments, but to a private probation company. However, the private probation company charged a $15 enrolment fee and a monthly charge of $39 for “accepting Mr. McGee’s monthly payments.” After a year, Mr. McGee had paid an extra $552 on top of his original fine and still went to jail because he could not pay the last $186 (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). Across the board, the mass incarceration rates have been increasing because of a systemic injustice and unfairness in the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper set out to examine the chief contributing factors to the increased rates of incarceration in the US and the apparent racial and socioeconomic disparities among the poor, minority groups, or both. It established that the market for private prisons grew as a result of three things. First, American leaders, since the Nixon Administration, have been implementing the tough-on-crime policies. These policies started by increasing law enforcement activity and scrutiny in low income neighbourhoods, those where African Americans lived, or both (which was often the case). These people were the victims of unequal policing, where they were more likely to be stopped and arrested by the police for minor infractions. As these individuals were introduced to the criminal justice system, they were assumed guilty and became part of a crime control system.
Secondly, prosecutors have become the kings due to the power they wield in the criminal justice system. For instance, while most public defenders lack resources, prosecutors have access to the law enforcement agencies who can conduct investigations at their behest, government labs equipped with forensic analysts and their tools, and the power to subpoena witnesses. The prosecutors exercise their power with no oversight or accountability. In other words, the criminal justice system makes it impossible for the defendants to win because it does not “require prosecutors to reveal the basis for their charging decisions, even when the decisions produce racial disparities.”
Lastly, A significant number of other cases are settled out of court, with the defendants largely pleading guilty to crimes they sometimes never committed. Poor Americans have stayed in jail for up to years without a lawyer. When they are assigned one, the public defender is often too busy to manage a large caseload that they cannot spare extra time for the defendant. With no investigation conducted, the defendants are exploited by the prosecutions to accept guilty plea bargains regardless of their actual innocence.
References
Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2013). Fifty years of defiance and resistance after Gideon v. Wainwright. Yale LJ , 122 , 2150.
Butler, P. D. (2012). Poor people lose: Gideon and the critique of rights. Yale LJ , 122 , 2176.
Roberts, A. (2018). Arrests as guilt. Ala. L. Rev. , 70 , 987.
Wyatt, T. R., Rockich-Winston, N., White, D., & Taylor, T. R. (2020). “Changing the narrative”: a study on professional identity formation among Black/African American physicians in the US. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 1-16.
