ACE

Category: Human Rights and Equality

  • The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community

    The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community

    What is the Americans with Disabilities Act?

    The ADA, passed in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush, ensures equal opportunities and access for people with disabilities. It defines disability as an impairment that significantly limits a “major life activity,” such as breathing, walking, talking, hearing, seeing, sleeping, self-care, manual tasks, and working. Individuals qualify for ADA protection if they have been subjected to a prohibited action due to an actual or perceived impairment, whether or not it limits a major life activity. This definition includes those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

    Historical Context

    The deaf community played a crucial role in the ADA’s passage and advocating for additional protections for people with disabilities. Dr. Frank Bowe, a deaf activist, lobbied for the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, a precursor to the ADA, which prohibited disability-based discrimination by entities receiving federal funds. Title II of the ADA addressed issues with state and local governments. The ‘Deaf President Now’ movement in 1988 at Gallaudet University, the only deaf liberal arts college, raised awareness about discrimination, influencing the ADA’s passage with strong support (76 to 8 votes).

    Fifteen years later, on March 6, 1988, deaf protesters gathered at Gallaudet University, the world’s only deaf liberal arts college, to oppose the appointment of a hearing president. This ‘Deaf President Now’ movement significantly influenced the ADA’s passage by drawing attention to the discrimination faced by people with disabilities. The ADA was later passed with overwhelming support, securing a vote of 76 to 8.

    Accommodations and Protections 

    The ADA aims to safeguard Americans with disabilities across different aspects of daily life. Comprising various titles, including employment, state and local government, places of public accommodation, telecommunications relay services, and miscellaneous provisions, the act addresses diverse areas and entities.

    Accommodations, a key benefit of the ADA, provide crucial support for individuals with disabilities. In educational settings, accommodations for deaf students may include interpreters, note-takers, and tutors. Beyond education, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, connects with the ADA’s Title on employment discrimination. The EEOC defines accommodations as any change in the work environment or customary practices that ensures equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

    Title I of the ADA emphasizes the need for employers to offer reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it imposes undue hardship. Undue hardship is defined as a situation where accommodation, like providing a sign language interpreter for a small business, would be excessively costly or resource-intensive. Larger businesses, with greater financial capacity and resources, are better equipped to cover such accommodations without facing undue hardship.

    Pros and Arguments in Support of the ADA

    1. Assisted communication tools with law enforcement 

    Communication with law enforcement is crucial for deaf individuals to be credible witnesses and defend themselves against accusations. The ADA addresses this by requiring law enforcement agencies to provide necessary communication aids and services for effective communication with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. However, this obligation does not apply if a specific aid or service would impose undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of law enforcement services provided. Examples of effective communication tools include sign language interpreters and written communication.

    1. No employment discrimination allowed in people with disabilities

    A key protection offered by the ADA is the prohibition of employment discrimination, ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities. This prevents businesses from making decisions solely based on profit motives or stereotypical assumptions when dealing with individuals with disabilities.. The ADA doesn’t allow businesses to discriminate against individuals who require accommodations. In 2017, 53% of deaf people were employed, indicating a significant increase in job opportunities for this group.

    1. Improvement in telecommunications 

    Before the ADA, technology and captioned content accessibility were limited. However, the ADA now mandates closed captioning for all federally funded public service announcements, ensuring that deaf individuals have access to information from television news and PSAs. This broader access enhances their knowledge in politics and policy, facilitating more effective participation in voting. Between 1984-1990, there was a significant increase in captioned programs, including prime time series, movies, and nightly newscasts. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 further contributed by requiring digital television receivers to include caption-decoding technology, making captioned content a standard feature on all digital televisions.

    1. Better education 

    Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the enrollment of deaf students in two or four-year colleges and universities has consistently increased. For instance, the Rochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT/NTID), a leading college for deaf students, reported a record enrollment of 1,450 students in 2008, surpassing the 1984 figure of 1,358 students, which was before the ADA. The ADA’s implementation of 504 and IEP education plans, with accommodations such as interpreters, notetakers, extra time, and readers, has played a crucial role in supporting the success of deaf students.

    Cons and Arguments Against the ADA

    1. HEALS Act

    The HEALS Act, a follow-up to the CARES Act, emerged with stimulus packages and provisions protecting against liabilities like those in the ADA. This legislation shields employers and property owners from liability unless they claim to have made all reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Introduced during the COVID-19 crisis to alleviate financial burdens on businesses, it aimed to let them prioritize public safety without undue concern for disability accommodations. This move was particularly relevant as the U.S. experienced a significant economic contraction during the pandemic, with the GDP falling by 8.9 percent in Q2 2020, the largest single-quarter contraction in over 70 years. However, critics argued that the HEALS Act set a concerning precedent, suggesting that disability protections could be deprioritized during crises. Many felt it was unfair to waive these protections, as people with disabilities faced similar COVID-19 risks and economic hardships as the general population.

    1. Definitions of disability can be loose, vague, or unclear, leading to misrepresentation

    The ADA, designed to protect people with disabilities, faces criticism for having what some argue are too loose conditions for determining disability. This can result in individuals who may not be significantly disabled receiving similar benefits as those with more severe disabilities. A lawsuit involving breast cancer highlights this ambiguity, where a court dismissed a case because breast cancer, even with extensive chemotherapy and debilitating side effects, was not considered a disability. The challenge lies in defining where the line is drawn; while illnesses like breast cancer impact major life activities, they may not be seen as traditional disabilities. This case and similar ones may contribute to narrowing the definition of disability, making it harder for entitled individuals to receive accommodations.

    1. Individual expenses and costly accommodations 

    While the ADA aims to address employment issues for people with disabilities, some argue it falls short, particularly in considering the extra costs associated with living with a disability. Data reveals that households with an adult with a disability requiring accommodation face an average of 28% higher expenses (an additional $17,690 per year) to maintain the same standard of living as households without a disabled member. For deaf and hard of hearing individuals, these costs could include out-of-pocket expenses like hearing aids or cochlear implants, improving their workplace interactions but adding financial strain. Businesses, especially small ones, may find ADA compliance costly, with an estimated average expense of $930 per worker accommodation. Between 1992 and 1997, over 90,000 discrimination complaints were filed, with 29% related to failure to provide adequate accommodations, suggesting that cost challenges hindered compliance. Additionally, employment rates for disabled individuals, particularly men and women under 40, declined after the ADA’s implementation, marking a departure from past trends.

  • Understanding the Critical Race Theory Debate

    Understanding the Critical Race Theory Debate

    Critical race theory began as a legal concept that explained how policies can be used to enforce a system that benefits white individuals while ignoring minorities and people placed at an economic disadvantage, focusing on systemic effects of racism. In public K-12 education, critical race theory can be defined as a method of teaching that addresses the origins of systemic borders for people of color. 

    Arguments in Favor of Teaching CRT in Schools

    Those in favor of discussing CRT in K-12 education argue that these conversations give an uncensored version of history to students, and acknowledge how people of color have been disproportionately systematically affected. This is important because many elements of systemic racism still impact people of color today, leading to lower economic outcomes and opportunities. Some proponents also argue young people sublimely take in messaging that create unconscious biases, and openly discussing issues around race is an important way of addressing and undoing these biases before they have calcified. Prohibiting critical race theory also restricts educators in their teaching abilities. Some educators argue that due to proposed legislation, discussions about the Civil War and slavery might also be inadvertently curtailed and constrained, as certain aspects of what they teach could be categorized as critical race theory.

    Currently, critical race theory is not included in the curriculum of public schools. Nonetheless, 17 states have broadened the scope of topics that educators can address, particularly those connected to critical race theory, indicating a tendency towards integrating elements of critical race theory into public education. Likewise, many have begun to place limitations seemingly against critical race theory. Of the fifty states, 14 have effectively limited how educators can speak on race, and 22 others have taken/plan on taking similar measures. Former President Trump issued several warnings and executive orders against implementation of critical race theory in public K-12 education during his time in office.

    Arguments in Opposition

    Many in opposition to CRT discussions in schools argue that CRT is the wrong method for achieving equality in the United States. They believe that discussing these narratives around unconscious bias and historical racism creates division between students where none need exist. Raising these topics to young children can actually backfire, and make them aware of differences between races. These narratives can also make white children view themselves as oppressors.

    In addition, some believe that conversations about race are inherently personal, and parents have the right to decide how and when those conversations take place. They argue that every family has a different approach to addressing sensitive topics, and that parents are best positioned to lead discussions around race, bias, etc. based on their family values, history, and understanding of their child’s maturity.

    CRT Moving Forward

    As the United States government approaches another crucial election cycle in 2024, the issue of critical race theory in public K-12 education is poised to become a prominent topic, attracting attention and discussions from various political perspectives. Since there isn’t a centralized national curriculum or set guidelines dictating what should be included in education, individual states possess the authority to shape their own education systems. This grants them the ability to decide whether critical race theory or similar concepts are integrated into their respective state’s educational framework. However, President Trump’s efforts to limit CRT in schools via executive action suggest that national education standards might enter the conversation.

  • Food Security and Local Food Production

    Food Security and Local Food Production

    Background

    Generally, local food production refers to systems in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed within the same area. However, there is debate within the local food movement about this definition. For example, some call for local food systems to expand distribution—to sell food outside of the boundaries of the local community—while others fear that this kind of expansion would dilute local food’s impact. The looseness of the term local food production is perhaps indicative of its relatively new growth in the American food system. 

    Historically, local food (at least in the way that it is generally defined today) was not a major factor in American food production. Even today, it makes up a very small portion of total U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in 2012, local food sales produced $6.1 billion, or about 1.5% of total U.S. agricultural production. This is an increase from 2008, where the USDA estimated that these sales accounted for $4.8 billion. However, the U.S. food system remains focused on globally integrated food production, where the places in which food is grown and processed and the places where it is eaten can be thousands of miles apart. 

    There are efforts to use local food production to address issues of food insecurity, which remains a significant issue in the U.S. The USDA reported that 10.5% of households in the United States were affected by food insecurity in 2020. The use of local food production as a means of addressing food insecurity has been contextualized differently in different national contexts. In Cuba, for example, it has been utilized as a means of bolstering the nation’s domestic food supply, particularly during times of crisis. In the context of the U.S., the focus of local food production appears to lie less on increasing the quantity of the food supply than it does on shifting the way in which the food supply is produced in order to improve food access and food system resiliency.

       USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales 2008-2012, Congressional Research Service

    Food Accessibility

    Proponents of local food production argue that it can improve access to food. One of the main arguments is that local food production, by siting food within communities, can make healthy food more accessible to those communities. In neighborhoods where healthy food vendors are scarce, residents may need to travel outside of their neighborhood to reach healthy food; local food production is intended to bring healthy food closer to people. 

    Another main argument made by supporters of local food production is that it can encourage the formation of political practices, within communities, that enable people to have greater agency in their food system, and make decisions about food distribution more equitably. Access-based local food production efforts can be seen through governmental policies in the form of USDA funds that are designed to support farmers markets and urban gardens. On the nongovernmental side, there are efforts to create local food systems that link consumers, producers, processors, and distributors with institutions to support the community through local food production and food-based businesses. 

    There are also efforts to form local food retail sites such as farmers markets. The evidence surrounding each of these elements of accessibility is conflicting. There is some evidence that local food production can have some impact on the diets of communities. For instance, there is research suggesting that proximity to farmers markets improves diet and exercise. Additionally, there is research showing that, in general, convenient access to healthy food causes incidences of overweight and obesity to decrease, and diets to improve. As farmers markets are designed to bring food (especially produce) from local farmers directly to consumers in a community, it has been argued that farmers markets can fulfill this role of providing convenient food access. However, it has also been argued that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that increasing access to local food improves either diets or food security. 

    A study of 24 farmers markets in Los Angeles found that the amount of fresh produce offered in farmers markets differs based on the racial and economic composition of the communities in which they operate, which raises issues about equity. In addition, local food is often as, or more expensive than, non-local food, which casts doubt on its potential to improve access through affordability. 

    At the same time, there is evidence showing that expanding local food production increases employment, among a number of other positive economic outcomes. For example, a study from Iowa State University found that re-localizing the production of staple food items (such as chicken or eggs) would add 50-75 jobs in Southeast Iowa. 

    Evidence of local food systems fostering more equitable food distribution and increased community agency is similarly conflicting. Research suggests that while local food production can increase equity and agency, it does not always do so, and some have argued that localized food systems may actually produce issues of inclusion. However, others argue that this criticism of local food systems makes generalizations that are too broad, and call for more research on different local food initiatives.

    Food Resiliency

    Advocates for expanding local food production allege that it can improve food security by strengthening the resiliency of the American food system. One of the main arguments is that expansion of local food production makes production sites more geographically dispersed, and introduces diversity in production and distribution, making the system less vulnerable to shocks. It is also argued that it shortens supply chains, thereby saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. 

    The USDA has invested some money into the resiliency aspect of local food production, including loans specifically intended to encourage private investment into local food processing. Additionally, in an endeavor that combines both the private and governmental sectors, there is a partnership between the Southeast regional supermarket chain Lowes Foods and the Center for Environmental Farming Systems that used U.S. government funding to engage in a partnership to increase the amount of local food available at Lowes Foods. 

    There is some debate about whether local food systems improve food system resiliency. While local food systems shorten supply chains, because they are generally meant to keep the distribution of food within a certain area, the claim that they reduce energy costs has been challenged. For example, some research suggests that the local deliveries made by trucks performing regional food distribution are relatively less efficient than the large-scale transportation used in the mainstream food system. Some have also argued that local food production may not be the most efficient use of agricultural resources, arguing that non-local producers make better use of them. 

    Additionally, an article from the American Enterprise Institute argues that, though local food production has its uses, a food system that makes use of international food trade is less vulnerable to disruption than a purely local one, because the shocks to global food systems that are the most important are weather-based issues affecting yields, and usually impact individual countries more severely than they do the world system as a whole. 

    There is evidence supporting the use of local food production as a means of strengthening food security, and actions are being taken within the federal government, as well as  outside of it, to expand it. However, an existing body of contradictory research suggests a potential need for further research on this topic, if local food production’s potential to impact food security is to be fully understood. 

  • Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

    Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

    What are Enhanced Interrogation Techniques? 

    Enhanced Interrogation Techniques refers to interrogation methods employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) on detainees at remote detention centers, including Guantanamo Bay. These interrogation techniques were authorized shortly after the 9/11 attacks with the goal of extracting intelligence from suspected terrorists. During these special interrogations, the U.S. government approved the use of techniques including sleep deprivation, total isolation, waterboarding and more. Enhanced Interrogations were carried out between 2002 to 2009. At least 39 detainees during this time period underwent “enhanced interrogation”.

    The Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) was enacted by Congress as another War on Terrorism initiative. The Act granted the President the power “to take…necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,  organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”. AUMF served as a legal foundation for the military invasion and operations in countries over two decades. 

    On Sept 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a classified covert action Memorandum of Notification (MON), authorizing the CIA to capture and detain persons suspected of terrorist activities.  

    AUMF and MON were used to justify the use of enhanced interrogation on detainees deemed to be suspected terrorists. Policymakers are now asking whether the use of these techniques is an effective and ethical method of eliciting information or discouraging insurgents.

    Enhanced Interrogation Arguments: 

    Following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration grappled with what to do with prisoners of war and suspected terrorists offered to the U.S by other countries. A letter sent by the CIA to the White House advocated for torturing individuals such as Abu Zaubaydah, a detainee in Guantanamo Bay, to protect American lives; The CIA wrote to the White House, “countless more Americans may die unless we can persuade [Abu Zubaydah] to tell us what he knows.” 

    The Senate Intelligence Committee published a report that details hidden aspects of the CIA interrogation program. The CIA continued to justify the usa of enhanced interrogation by describing their program to the Department of Justice and Congress as “getting unique, otherwise unobtainable intelligence that helped disrupt terrorist plots and save thousands of lives,” an official who briefed the report informed The Washington Post. As a testament to the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees, the CIA cited examples of specific terrorists plots “thwarted” and terrorists captured based on information revealed following enhanced interrogation. 

    The Senate Intelligence Committee studied 20 counterterrorism success cases cited by the CIA, and uncovered discrepnies. For example, in some cases, there was no relationship between the counterterrorism success and information gained using enhanced interrogation techniques from detainees. In the other cases, the information acquired by the CIA was incorrectly labeled as acquired “as a result” of interrogation techniques. 

    There are also serious concerns over the reliability of intelligence obtained through the use of enhanced interrogation. A study done by Social Issue and Policy Review on the use of torture as a interrogation technique indicate the strategy resulted in unreliable information, mental and emotional tolls on victims, and risks of retaliation against solidiers and civilians. The report concludes that in tense situations, detainees are motivated to lie. 

    A form of Torture? 

    Jose Rodriguez, a CIA official, drew a distinction between torture and enhanced interroration. He believed that torture was not effective, but the information gleaned from enhanced interrogation was essential in dismantling al-Qaida’s operations.

    The Human Rights First Organization disagrees with this claim, citing that International committees and US courts have found that waterboarding, mock executions, and other authorized techniques “violate the protections afforded all persons in custody – whether combatants or civilians – under the laws of armed conflict and international human rights law, and can amount to torture or “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” The United Nations Committee against Torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture have stated these techniques constitute torture. In addition, President Barack Obama acknowleged the cruelties suffered by detainees at the hands of the CIA, and considers waterboarding a form of torture.

    The labeling of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as torture is important because of the implications. If it is found to be defined as torture, the CIA program was a direct violation of the“anti-torture” laws enacted in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States help draft. Advocates against EIT insist that criminal laws used to prosecute people on U.S. soil can be applied too torture cases overseas. The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which the United States ratified, requires all parties to “take effective legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.” According to Elizabeth Hotzman, a former congresswoman, the law may be applied to anybody including people who engaged in torture outside of the U.S.

    On the other side of this debate, some advocates for the practice acknowledge that enhanced interrogation is a form of torture, though claim that enhanced interrogations can be effective in situations where standard interrogation cannot. In 2017, President Trump expressed similar views, and suggested permitting waterboarding because he believes it worked. In addition, there is no mechanism for punishing states for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so many disagree with the impact of being found in violation. 

  • The Persecution of Human Rights Defenders in Latin America

    The Persecution of Human Rights Defenders in Latin America

    What Are Human Rights Defenders?

    According to the United Nations, human rights defenders “individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights in a peaceful manner.” This often takes the form of monitoring governments and businesses to bring attention to human rights violations and crimes, defending vulnerable populations, and advocating for environmental protection. Human rights defenders often come into conflict with authoritarian governments who see them as threats, as human rights defenders can directly criticize government action or fill a gap when a government fails to act. In Venezuela, domestic laws are used against human rights defenders that limit their operations and restrict their access to funding. 

    Violence in the Region

    Central and Latin America is a global hotspot for the persecution of human rights defenders. The region accounts for three quarters of all murders of defenders globally. In January 2022, thirteen defenders were killed in Colombia, three in Honduras, three in Brazil, and one defender and four journalists in Mexico. Eighteen of those killed were involved in defending rights in relation to access to land and the protection of land and the environment. In recent years, human rights defenders have experienced greater persecution due to the effects of the pandemic, increasing environmental hazards, and the lack of legal protections in place for HRDs. The pandemic allowed oppressive governments to implement draconian policies, take new steps to restrict movement and privacy, and crack down on opposition under the guise of public health measures. 

    Many human rights defenders migrate elsewhere within the region to avoid retaliation from the perpetrators of human rights violations, and there is no significant evidence that authoritarian regimes carry out transnational repression. Many defenders and activists attempt to flee to countries that are safer, but there are still many risks in states throughout the region. 

    Environmental activists are especially vulnerable in Mexico and Colombia. 212 environmental and land/water activists were murdered globally in 2020—a record high. 165 of these deaths took place in Latin America, with 65 in Colombia and 30 in Mexico. Colombia had led in the number of murders for two consecutive years (2019 and 2020) and almost half of these offences were against people engaged in protecting small-scale agriculture/land rights. 40% of human rights defenders killed in 2019 were involved in land protection, worked with indigenous groups, or advocated for environmental changes. 

    Honduras: The Honduran government has been accused of using the criminal justice system to persecute activists, especially the Garifuna indigenous group which is currently disputing ownership of certain properties. In 2021, 200 were harassed, threatened, or attacked, and 80% of the violence targeted activists defending land and environmental rights. Roughly 90% of violent incidents reported against human rights defenders went unpunished.

    Nicaragua: Human rights abuses have been prevalent in Nicaragua and, as a result, 100,000 have fled the country. Costa Rica, Panama, and Mexico are major destinations for Nicaraguan migrants. Many opposition leaders and activists were arrested prior to the contentious 2021 election, causing supporters to leave out of concern for political persecution.

    Policy Options Looking Forward:

    The goal for HRDs today and in the future is to be allowed to work freely in their environments to promote respect, protection, and equality for all along with environmental protection(including land access and control). The US, EU, all Latin American countries, businesses, and investors are being called on to “protect HRDs from the attacks they face and to tackle the drivers of abuse.” However, it is not clear what that protection should look like, and, apart from asylum processes for at-risk individuals. The mechanism for changing another state’s domestic practices is nonexistent, beyond vague statements about soft power and diplomacy.

    The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders: In 1998, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders was adopted by the General Assembly and commits the UN to promoting and protecting those who advocate for human rights across the world. This resolution was adopted twenty-five years ago, and could be updated to address the current state of human rights. The current resolution recommends utilizing diplomacy to protect defenders, but lacks details for how that should take place. The Declaration does not have a mechanism for enforcement  and relies on powerful countries to create consequences for human rights violations, which may not align with other strategic interests. For example, the US works closely with Mexico to manage migration and security along the shared border, so pressuring Mexico to change its behavior towards journalists could come at a high cost in terms of reduced cooperation on migration.

    The Biden Administration: In October 2021, President Biden announced that the US would serve on the UN Human Rights Council for three years in order to work to protect human rights defenders globally. Biden aims to promote accountability of governments that have persecuted, threatened, and killed defenders. The Biden and Harris Administration claim to put democratic values and human rights at the center of US Foreign Policy, yet there is no formal policy for protecting those who are defending human rights abroad. The US State Department has published a list of ways in which the US attempts to protect activists abroad that include assisting defenders obtain international protection, attending judicial hearings of defenders, attempting to keep close contact with activists abroad, encouraging host governments to work with the defenders, working with the UN to address specific threats, etc.

    La Esperanza Protocol: This protocol aims to improve the investigation of and response to serious threats against human rights defenders. This protocol, implemented in 2019, is the first international tool to establish best practices and guidelines to investigate threats of this kind. This project does important work in gathering knowledge and making it publicly available, but does not have a mechanism to ensure its implementation.

  • Preventing Crime Through Rehabilitation

    Preventing Crime Through Rehabilitation

    What is Rehabilitation Theory and how does it relate to crime prevention?

    Rehabilitation Theory is a forward-looking theory, similarly to Deterrence Theory and Incapacitation Theory, where punishment through rehabilitation is justified through its ability to control crime. In contrast to Deterrence Theory and Incapacitation Theory, however, Rehabilitation Theory positions punishment as a mechanism to improve an individual’s character or behavior, which would then reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The word “punishment” often has a negative connotation, but Rehabilitation Theory gained traction in the United States through a concept known as the Rehabilitative Ideal, which positions punishment as a way for corrections to serve higher social purposes, notably the reduction of recidivism. 

    The Rehabilitative Ideal follows a positivist school of thought where participation in crime is the outcome of processes such as environmental factors, including family upbringing and social conditioning, or genetic factors. Throughout the early 20th century, the Medical Model of Intervention became the baseline rehabilitative treatment for individuals who commit crimes. People who commit crimes were seen as products of socio-economic or psychological forces beyond their control. Crime became a “sickness,” where the goal of rehabilitative treatment was to “cure” individuals, which would in turn reduce recidivism. Proponents of the Medical Model point to the subsequent introduction of psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers into prison settings. However, advocates for individuals in prison ultimately brought the Medical Model’s failures to light, pointing to the invasive and illegal procedures taking place in correctional institutions such as psychosurgery, electroconvulsive therapy, and chemical castration performed under the guise of “rehabilitation.” 

    Rehabilitation Policy in the US Before Martinson

    The use of rehabilitation as a form of punishment and crime prevention emerged in the late 19th century in penitentiaries at a time when people in prison were responsible for their own rehabilitation. The primary rationale behind crime was thought to stem from an individual’s inability to “to lead orderly and God-fearing lives.” However, penitentiaries soon became reformatories, which aimed to rehabilitate offenders through educational and vocational training, though they still utilized physical punishment. 

    The 1936 Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study was one of the first experiments that operated under the guidance of the Rehabilitative Ideal. The program aimed to prevent delinquency, and targeted under-priveleged boys by offering individual counseling through activities and home visits. Such attempts to utilize rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention would inform the intensive use of the Rehabilitative Ideal throughout the 1950s and 1960s in public policy. 

    The Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965 authorized furloughs, a system of work release, and standardized the use of community residential treatment centers for adult federal prisoners. The act emphasized the importance of reforming correctional work to create improved educational and vocational training programs for people in prison. Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach verbalized his support of the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965 by stating that the policies would amplify “the growing trend in the correctional field to augment inherently limited institutional resources with potentially greater community resources.” The law contained three major provisions:

    1. The Attorney General would have the authority to transfer individuals who were in prison to residential community treatment centers (more commonly known as Halfway Houses);
    2. The Attorney General can give individuals in prison brief periods to leave for emergencies or purposes relating to release preparations; and,
    3. The Attorney General can allow people in prison to work in private employment or participate in community training programs while remaining in prison.

    The aim of the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965 was to codify the federal government’s dedication toward creating rehabilitative programs for people in prison in order to reduce crime in the United States. 

    The Martinson Report: “Nothing Works”

    While the United States gravitated toward rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention throughout the 1950s and 1960s, everything changed in 1974 when Robert Martinson released his paper titled, “What Works? – Questions and answers about Prison Reform,” more commonly referred to as “The Martinson Report.” Between the years of 1960 and 1975, reported rates of robbery, aggravated assault, rape, and homicide increased by 263%, and property crime rates, specifically burglaries, increased by 200%. Crime was at an all time high in the United States, which led sociologists like Martinson to explore the effectiveness of rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention in America. 

    In Martinson’s research involving over two-hundred studies, he concluded that there was little reason to believe that rehabilitation reduces recidivism. Martinson addressed forms of rehabilitation such as education and vocational training, individual counseling, transforming the institutional environment of rehabilitation, medical treatment, and decarcerating individuals in prison, providing evidence for why he believed such measures do not work to prevent crime. Criminological reports leading up to the 1970s that found no significant treatment effects for prison rehabilitation programs coupled with Martinson’s Report ultimately coined the phrase and conclusion that “nothing works” in rehabilitating people in prison and that prison sentences should not include opportunities for rehabilitation. 

    Because Martinson’s Report arrived during a period of intensified rates of crime and recidivism in the United States, policymakers from all political backgrounds began to lean into the “get tough on crime” era. Martinson’s message was attractive to liberals, since it could be used to argue against incarceration and indeterminate sentencing, as well as conservatives, who demanded tougher handling of people who commit crimes. The political right and left, in addition to academics, found common ground through Martinson’s “nothing works” mentality, ultimately leading to the decimation of rehabilitative prison programming as a form of crime prevention in US public policy. 

    Rehabilitation Policy in the US After Martinson

    The Martinson Report, along with the overall agreement of policymakers and academics, culminated in the decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal and the rise of “new punitiveness.” As a result, the United State’s current criminal justice system is more punitive, where incapacitation is the most common form of crime prevention in US policy, rather than rehabilitation. 

    The 1989 Mistretta v. United States case ultimately reversed the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965, as well as any efforts by the federal government to implement rehabilitation as a way to prevent crime. Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress eliminated indeterminate sentencing at the federal level and created the United States Sentencing Commission. The Commission was intended to address the discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. Mistretta argued that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 violated the delegation-of-powers principle in US constitutional law by giving the Commission “excessive legislative powers.” However, the Supreme Court upheld the federal sentencing guidelines implemented by the Commission, which removed rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing people who committed a crime. In other words, the guidelines established by the commission were to be applied in all scenarios, ignoring factors such as responsiveness to treatment, person and family history, previous efforts to rehabilitate oneself, or alternatives to incapacitation.

    In 2008, Congress passed the Second Chance Act, which sanctioned federal investment in strategies to reduce recidivism and increase public safety using Rehabilitation Theory. Allegheny County, PA established reentry programs for people who were in prison that connected individuals with education, job readiness, treatment, and other services. Iowa also established pre-release planning for individuals nearing the end of their prison sentences. Overall, there have been few efforts from the federal government over the past few decades to implement reforms rooted in rehabilitation to reduce recidivism. A 2017 Department of Justice report on the Federal Bureau of Prison points to several policy goals focusing on rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention such as identifying individual’s criminogenic needs, developing standardized, evidence-based programs to reduce recidivism, ensuring that people who are in prison receive substance abuse treatment, and helping people in prison maintain family ties. 

    Effectiveness of Rehabilitation on Crime Prevention and the Impact on People of Color 

    Although Martinson later retracted many of his conclusions regarding rehabilitation programs, and his original report was found to include major methodological flaws, the academic community and policymakers embraced his views on rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention. Contemporary research demonstrates that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism by about 10%. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model uses risk assessment tools to provide rehabilitative treatment to individuals with the highest risk of committing another crime. In a study focusing on the effects of RNR efforts on Ohio’s halfway house programs, the recidivism rate of high-risk individuals lowered by 20%. The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) serves as an example of how community partnerships can also reduce recidivism. The BRI provides a family member or mentor to meet each released person when they leave prison, and researchers found that participants had a rearrest rate 30% lower than the control group. Rehabilitation has the capacity to lower recidivism rates when policymakers invest in mental health care, personalized education plans for individuals in prison, and ensuring that individuals leaving prison have job opportunities. People in prison who participate in education programs have a 43% lower chance of returning to prison than those who do not, and individuals who have a job when they are in prison are 24% less likely to recidivate. 

    More than 600,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons every year, but within three years of their release, two out of three individuals are rearrested. Because one in three African-American men are imprisoned throughout their lifetime, compared to one in six Latino men and one in seventeen White men, rehabilitative measures, rather than deterrence or incapacitation, have the greatest potential to reduce the mass incarceration of people of color in the United States. However, rehabilitation programs, specifically during the peak of US Rehabilitative Ideal policymaking, were reserved for individuals deemed capable of reform by policymakers who mostly prioritize white people. As a result, any early sociological studies of prisons do not include people of color in prison, which means the impact of rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention on people of color was, and still is, largely unexamined.

  • How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    Green Gentrification Overview 

    Gentrification occurs when wealthier, often white residents move into an existing low income urban district, displacing marginalized communities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites three key aspects of gentrification:

    1. Rising property values and rental costs;
    2. New construction, upgrading, or renovation of residential areas; 
    3. Turnover in the local population, including changes in the racial or ethnic composition. 

    When the protection and cleanup of brownfields, locally undesirable land uses (LULUs), other vacant and derelict land (VDL), or the introduction of urban green spaces and gardens instigates this trend, it is called environmental, or green, gentrification. 

    A brownfield is an expanse of land that may contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. There are about 450,000 brownfields in the U.S. today. Locally undesirable land uses include nuclear waste disposal sites, toxic waste dumps, incinerators, smelters, airports, freeways, and other sources of environmental, economic, or social degradation. Vacant and derelict land is property where industry once existed but became obsolete due to abandonment by absentee landlords, or brownfields. Attractive green spaces are amenities like parks and community gardens. They also include revitalization projects that incorporate higher quantities of natural vegetation, fields, and flowers in urban spaces. Renewing these spaces or introducing attractive green spaces without anti-displacement measures has displaced underserved residents from their newly improved communities, which some have referred to as environmental racism. Displacement caused by environmental gentrification manifests in three forms.

    1. Direct Displacement forces residents to move because of rent increases and building renovations.
    2. Exclusionary Displacement happens when housing choices for low income residents are limited.
    3. Displacement pressures are created when supports and social services low-income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood. 

    Causes of Green Gentrification

    In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration enforced a series of racially discriminatory lending practices (known as redlining). These made it harder for Black Americans to purchase homes and accumulate wealth, so individuals from lower income and minority communities relocated to urban, inner-city areas where housing options were affordable. 

    These areas often bordered brownfields, VDLs, or LULUs. Over the years, public and private interest in revitalizing these areas has increased. Redeveloping brownfields increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, and improves the environment. Similarly, LULU rehabilitation can drive up local real estate prices while improving sanitation conditions for minority communities. As a result, developers have begun capitalizing on VDLs and other land in communities of color. Low cost land is often transformed into luxury residential units and projects with green amenities to attract affluent consumers market. 

    The EPA’s Brownfield and Land Revitalization Program, created in 1995, incentivizes local governments to invest in cleaning up and redeveloping these areas to initiate urban renewal projects through grants issued by the EPA. The program’s initiatives focus on environmental cleanup and conservation practices for areas with heavy environmental devastation (which are predominantly located in or surrounding communities of color). However, these policies focus on their projects’ environmental and economic benefits and often do not consider consequences for existing residents which leaves marginalized residents vulnerable to displacement. 

    Problems and Effects of Green Gentrification

    When low income populations are priced out of their neighborhoods, there is a high risk of eviction. Hispanic and Black renters experience eviction at higher rates than white renters. Evictions have been correlated with intensified poverty conditions, declining credit scores, lower earnings in adulthood, and lower life expectancy. Displacement by green gentrification prevents residents of color from benefiting from the improved environmental and infrastructural conditions. White residents, who are overrepresented in green urban spaces, are often the only ones who experience their benefits. Environmental gentrification can alter a city’s makeup and lifestyle through changing demographics and declining racial diversity. 

    Possible Policies and Solutions

    Some city planners and administrations advocate for legislation that restricts developers and landlords from dramatically increasing housing costs following urban renewal projects. On the other hand, others argue to allow more unrestricted development to avoid interfering with local economies and potentially stunting economic growth. 

    The “Just Green Enough” plan attempts to achieve environmental remediation while avoiding gentrification by revitalizing urban space with smaller projects. In this way, the development is “just enough” to cultivate the benefits of sustainability and green space while still prioritizing the community’s needs and avoiding displacement. These projects include building smaller parks coupled with affordable housing. This politically moderate solution does not deter the development of urban green spaces, but does try to adjust it to avoid the possibility of displacement. However, there is evidence that suggests it is just as likely for property values to rise in neighborhoods in close proximity to small-scale projects as larger ones, indicating that this solution may not be as effective at discouraging gentrification, which is a challenge in and of itself. 

    One alternative is a Community Land Trust (CLT)–community owned land which regulates housing prices and keeps them affordable for long periods of time. This housing is only sold to low-income families, who receive a modest return on their investment due to their “shared equity.” Philadelphia created a CLT in 2010 to combat growing housing prices in the city, and manages 36 rent-to-own townhomes with plans to build 75 more.

    The most recent federal legislation pertaining to green gentrification was the Opportunities Zones (OZ) Act (2017). This act allows investors to receive tax benefits for developing ZIP codes that governors within each state have identified as needing investment. To qualify as an OZ, the area must have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent. While it promotes investment in struggling areas, the act does not include anti- displacement measures.

  • Preventing Crime Through Deterrence

    Preventing Crime Through Deterrence

    Deterrence is one of the several goals of punishment alongside incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. Deterrence emphasizes that an individual will feel reluctant to commit a crime if the consequences of that punishment are too great. Legislators have utilized deterrence measures to create policies intended to reduce recidivism, sometimes at the cost of reinforcing racial disparities throughout the United States’ criminal justice system. 

    What is Deterrence Theory, and how does it relate to crime prevention?

    Deterrence Theory has three components: certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment, all of which aim to prevent both individuals who may commit a crime as well as other members of society from participating in unwanted behavior. 

    • Deterrence Theory implies that there is a certainty that the person who commits a crime will be caught. If a person believes that they will not be caught, then the threat of any punishment will not be effective;
    • Celerity is the idea that punishment imposed immediately after an offense will likely be more effective than one that is imposed years later;
    • Finally, if the benefit of carrying out a criminal offense outweighs the consequence, then committing a crime may seem like the more advantageous option, even to a rational person. As such, the severity of punishment is perhaps the most important component of Deterrence Theory, demonstrating that the punishment must not only deter individuals who may commit a crime, but also other members of society by positioning criminal behavior as unacceptable. 

    Contemporary deterrence theories are rooted in classical criminological theory. Cesare Becarria’s 1784 “Essay on Crimes and Punishments” and Jeremy Bentham’s 1781 “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” formed the foundation for the revival of Deterrence Theory in the 1970s. Rather than utilizing Deterrence Theory to explain why people commit crime, as was initially intended by founding philosophers such as Becarria and Bentham, economists and criminologists began to view the theory as a solution to crime. Principle assumptions of deterrence theory include:

    1. A target group receives a message, such as “it is wrong to murder, and taking someone’s life may result in a life-term prison sentence;”
    2. The target group perceives the message as a threat;
    3. The target group makes a rational decision as to whether or not they partake in criminal behavior based on the message they received.

    The “Get Tough Approach” to Crime

    After violent crime rates increased by 126% between 1960 and 1970, Congress adopted deterrence theories from classical criminological theory in the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan and served as the beginning of what would eventually become the “Get Tough On Crime” era. The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act set forth a new sentencing structure where any defendant found guilty of any offense under any Federal statute would be sentenced to a set term of imprisonment or probation and a fine in addition to additional sanctions. Legislators and legal scholars posited that mandatory sentences would deter people from committing crimes because harsher consequences would prevent criminal behavior. Despite the lack of evidence supporting these legislators’ claims, such ideology eventually gave birth to President Bill Clinton’s “Tough on Crime” campaigns throughout the 1990s. 

    The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (“the Crime Act”)  included funding for 100,000 more police officers, and implemented the “Three Strikes” policy. Overall, the bill lengthened prison sentences for certain federal crimes and raised mandatory minimum sentencing requirements across the United States. Anyone convicted of a crime under a mandatory minimum would receive at least that sentence. Mandatory minimums were intended to promote uniformity, ensuring that the law would determine a sentence, not the biases of the judge. The Three Strikes Law generally mandates a life sentence for the third offense of violent felonies, imposing harsher punishments for people with lengthy criminal records. Proponents of the Three Strikes Law claim that if a person who committed a crime knows that they face the potential of a life in prison for their next crime, they will not participate in offending behavior. Advocates of the policy contend that the Three Strikes Law protects victims who may fear the return of those who committed the crime, especially in cases involving rape or theft. Opponents of the Three Strikes Law argue that the policy does not deter the most violent crimes, since a life sentence would not prevent a person from committing a crime who acts impulsively. Additionally, out of nearly 34 million serious crimes committed each year in the US, only 3 million result in arrests, so many individuals who consider committing a crime do not anticipate being caught. 

    Truth In Sentencing (TIS) laws restrict the possibility of early release for incarcerated individuals. Such laws aim to limit the amount of time people in prison can earn off of their non-life sentences, which require incarcerated people to serve a substantial portion of their prison sentence before being eligible for release. Additional federal legislation passed as a part of the Crime Act and amended in 1996 gave states grants to expand their prison capacity if they imposed TIS requirements on those who commit violent crimes. The program, known as the Federal TIS Incentive Grant Program, functioned under the 85% Rule, which required states to force those who commit violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentence in prison in order to receive the grant. As a result, earning time off of court-appointed sentences through good behavior and participation in prison programming or rehabilitation no longer helped people in prison reduce their prison sentence. New York implemented a 1998 law which required first time offenders to serve 85% of a determinate sentence. Nevada’s TIS laws required anyone who committed a crime to serve 100% of the minimum prison term before becoming eligible for parole.

    Criticisms, “Get Tough” Policies, and their Impact on Racial Minorities 

    Deterrence Theory and related policies aim to reduce crime, but a series of studies indicated that harsher penalties led to increases in crimes of rape, assault, larceny, robbery, burglary, and auto theft. Because criminal acts may be driven by a variety of factors, such as the influence of drugs or alcohol, the existence of harsh penalties is not necessarily a deciding factor in a person’s willingness to commit the crime. Deterrence Theory assumes that human beings are always rational actors that consider the consequences of their behavior before committing a crime, so someone who is temporarily impared would not consider the pros and cons of their actions. Additionally, proponents of Deterrence Theory would assume that more severe sentences reduce a person’s likelihood of committing another crime. However, a 1999 study that reviewed 336,052 people with criminal records dating back to 1958 found that longer prison sentences increased recidivism by 3%. Finally, Deterrence Theory operates under the assumption that there is certainty people will be apprehended for committing a crime, but due to the limits of the US criminal justice system, many crimes do not result in arrest or conviction. Increasing the severity of punishment through longer prison sentences, for instance, would not deter individuals from criminal behavior if they do not believe they will be apprehended. 

    Mandatory minimums aim to create a more equitable criminal justice system, however one effect has been an increase in the power of prosecutors and a reduction in the power of judges in sentencing. Prosecutors have the ability to charge defendants with crimes that trigger mandatory minimum sentences. Previously, a judge had the ability to reduce sentences based on their understanding of the case and the defendant’s risk to society, however TISs moved that decision to prosecutors.
    African-American adults are 5.9 times more likely and Hispanic adults are 3.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than white adults, so imposing life sentences because an individual has a criminal record disproportionately impacts people of color. The Crime Act also expanded the school-to-prison pipeline and increased racial disparities in juvenile justice involvement by creating mandatory minimums that impact low-income children of color who are convicted of multiple crimes. Additionally, prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for African American people than for white people who were charged with the same offense. The 100:1 ratio in the amount of crack cocaine v. powder cocaine that triggered a five year mandatory minimum ultimately led to the mass incarceration of African Americans. Five grams of crack cocaine resulted in the same sentence as 500 grams of powder cocaine, and because the majority of people arrested for crack offenses are African American, the 100:1 ratio created racial disparities in the average length of sentences. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses to a 18:1 ratio and eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine by increasing statutory fines.

  • Preventing Crime Through Incapacitation

    Preventing Crime Through Incapacitation

    What is Incapacitation Theory and how does it relate to crime prevention?

    Similar to Deterrence Theory, Incapacitation Theory follows a reductivist school of thought, meaning that policymakers justify punishment through incapacitation by positioning it as a way to avoid potential future consequences. That being said, Incapacitation Theory operates under the assumption that any person who commits a crime may commit another crime. Incapacitation Theory suggests that people who have committed crimes should be prevented from committing other crimes through removal from society and/or other methods that restrict an individual’s physical ability to commit another crime. 

    Proponents of Selective Incapacitation, an incapacitation strategy within Incapacitation Theory, argue that people who are convicted of committing a crime should be divided into two groups before sentencing:

    1. “Dangerous offenders,” people who pose a high risk of committing further dangerous crimes; and
    2. “Non-dangerous offenders,” people who are unlikely to commit more dangerous crimes if they are released from prison.

    While the intention of Selective Incapacitation supporters may be to avoid overly severe punishments that result in longer sentences and prison overcrowding, there is no known method through which the courts could distinguish dangerous individuals from non-dangerous individuals with accuracy. Sentences based on Selective Incapacitation punish individuals for crimes not yet committed, which runs the risk that people who are identified as dangerous and are incarcerated will not actually commit another crime. 

    There are multiple types of Incapacitation within Incapacitation Theory: 

    • Incarceration– Imprisonment serves as the primary method of incapacitation in the United States. Incapacitation through incarceration functions through the perspective that a person who committed a crime cannot commit more crimes in their community while they are carrying out their prison sentence;
    • Capital Punishment– The Death Penalty is the most severe and permanent form of incapacitation. An individual is not capable of committing any other crimes once they are put to death, so capital punishment fulfills the goal of incapacitation to an extreme degree;
    • Lesser Penalties– Lesser penalties may concern restricting a person from committing a crime rather than completely disabling a person from committing another crime. For instance, revoking an individual’s driver’s license in response to numerous speeding tickets or putting a person on house arrest both achieve restrictive forms of incapacitation.

    Policy Origins of Mass Incarceration in the US

    Following President Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign concerning “law and order,” his administration allocated $1.5 billion in state and local law enforcement grants to prevent crime in America. Soon thereafter, Nixon declared the “War on Drugs,” and Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act (CSA) in 1970 to prevent drug abuse, provide treatment for drug abusers, and strengthen law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse. The CSA also provided a legal basis for the government’s “War on Drugs.” For instance, New York’s strict 1973 sentencing guidelines known as the “Rockefeller Drug Laws” placed mandatory prison sentences of fifteen years to life for drug dealers and addicts, including marijuana. Some policymakers argue that sentencing laws like the Rockefeller Drug Laws expanded the United State’s prison population from the 330,000 in 1973 to a peak of 2.3 million today. 

    President Ronald Reagan’s administration further expanded Nixon’s “War on Drugs” through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which authorized $1 billion to state and federal law enforcement and mandated harsher penalties in federal drug cases. The policy also expanded the use of no-knock warrants. Reagan’s administration’s drug reform policies resulted in an increase of incarceration rates of non-violent drug offenders from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 in 1997. 

    The 1994 Crime Bill under President Bill Clinton’s administration paved the way for states to pass more tough-on-crime laws, as coined through Clinton’s “Tough on Crime” era. The 1994 law encouraged prosecutors and police to incarcerate more people and for longer periods of time. The Three Strikes Law, one of the most well known policies under the 1994 Crime Bill, required a minimum sentence of twenty-five years to life for people who commited three crimes with prior serious felony convictions. While Deterrence Theory partly informed the Three Strikes Law, the policy took shape through Incapacitation Theory. In California alone, there were almost 43,000 individuals in prison under the Three Strikes Law as of 2004, which was 26% of the total CA prison population. 

    Due to sentencing policies resulting from the “War on Drugs,” the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses has increased from 40,900 in 1980 to 430,926 in 2019. Overall, there has been a 500% increase in US prison and jail populations over the past forty years, with over two million people incarcerated today.

    Effectiveness of Incarceration and the Impact on People of Color

    Despite the steady decrease in violent crime over the past twenty years, the population of people in prison for violent crimes has quintupled since 1984. The National Research Council concluded that although prison growth was a factor in reducing crime “the magnitude of the crime reduction remains highly uncertain and the evidence suggests it was unlikely to have been large.” That being said, higher incarceration rates do not correlate to lower violent crime rates. The Sentencing Project points to two main factors that can explain why the impact of mass incarceration on reducing crime today is limited:

    • Incarceration is not a very effective tool to prevent youth crimes and drug crimes, since those individuals are quickly replaced by other people seeking an income or struggling with addiction.
    • Additionally, people tend to “age out” of crime, where crime drops rapidly when adults reach their 30s and 40s. 

    John Ehrlichman, Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Nixon, later admitted in a “War on Drugs” confessional statement:

    “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”

    African Americans make up 12% of the US population, but they account for 44% of the US prison and jail population as the largest single demographic group behind bars. Harsher sentencing laws for drugs disproportionately fell on communities of color after the Reagan administration’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. In particular, mandatory minimum sentences that were authorized for drug users as a result of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, specifically the 100:1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences, led to wider racial disparities in incarceration rates. After the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing on crack cocaine offenses, the average federal sentence for African Americans was 49% higher than for white people, 38% higher than it was four years prior. Although the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity, Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at nearly five times the rate of white people. 

    Incapacitation through Capital Punishment and the Impact on People of Color 

    Proponents of the capital punishment argue that incapacitation through the death penalty ensures that executed individuals who committed a crime are unable to commit another crime. However, there is no evidence pointing to the fact that the death penalty prevents crime more effectively than long term imprisonment, especially since states that have capital punishment do not show significant changes in either crime or murder rates. While capital punishment is a form of incapacitation, it is not more effective than life imprisonment in preventing crime, which explains why thirty-seven states allow juries to sentence defendants to live imprisonment without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty. 

    Out of the 3,350 people currently on “death row” in the US, more than 40% are African American, and a disproportionate number are Native American, Latino, and Asian. Since October 2002, twelve people have been executed in cases where the defendant was white and the murder victim was black, while 178 African American defendants have beeen executed for murders with white victims, demonstrating the disproportionate impact of the death penalty on people of color.

  • Closing Guantanamo Bay

    Closing Guantanamo Bay

    The Problem that has Stumped Four Administrations  

    The fate of Guantanamo Bay has been a topic addressed by four Administrations in the last two decades. Efforts have been made to close down the detention center which has held nearly 800 suspected terrorists and criminals. Guantanamo remains open first and foremost because the process for reviewing and trying detainees is extensive in order to ensure the individual does not represent a threat to U.S. safety. In addition, it is a polarizing issue mired in partisan politics which has prolonged and, at times, prevented the enforcement of other solutions for detainees. President Obama’s plan to send a number of detainees to the U.S received intense political backlash from Republican senators, and ultimately failed. 

    President Bush established Military Commissions to try the first group of detainees brought to Guantanamo and accused of war crimes. During Bush’s Administration, approximately 500 detainees were transferred out of Guantanamo or released. Obama also approved the use of military trials; however, he also enforced Periodic Reviews as a way to re-evaluate the threat posed by Guantanamo detainees who were designated for indefinite detention. According to a 2015 report by IACHR, 8% of detainees were characterized as “fighters” for terrorist organizations.

    Currently, detainees can be released from Guantanamo Bay through adjudication from military trials or Periodic Review Boards.

    Military Trials

    Of those detainees remaining in Guantanamo, the Defense Department reports that 10 are undergoing military commission proceedings, and two detainees have been convicted. Military Commissions are intended to “promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.” according to the Manual for Military Courts. 

    Military trials are different to civilian courts in several ways:

    • Military trials are not restricted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, extending the types of evidence which prosecutors can display in their testimonies;
    • Military Commissions may allow the use of evidence obtained by inhuman and cruel treatment, potentially leading to questions about the credibility of the evidence;
    • Military Commissions require more time to reach a conviction compared to civilian courts. It is rare for a Military Commission to reach a decision in fewer than five years. 

    The military court and prison at Guantanamo has cost over $6 billion. The yearly cost of the military court and the prison at Guantanamo is $380 million. 

    Periodic Reviews

    The Periodic Review Board is composed of officials from the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; Joint Staff, and director of national intelligence. The Board assesses the potential threat detainees might pose on the United States in order to make informed decisions on whether detainees should remain in Guantanamo Bay. 

    The Periodic Board allows Detainees to participate in the process review. Detainees work with a military officer to help them through the process. In addition, detainees can request witnesses to offer information regarding whether the detainee should be kept in Guantanamo. If a detainee is found to be non-dangerous to the security of the US, they will be ready for transfer. If they are found to be dangerous they are again held indefinitely. 

    Periodic Review gives hope for detainees designated for indefinite detention at Guantanamo. Many critique the Board’s decision making process. According to Benjamin R. Farley, a trial attorney and law-of-war counsel in the U.S. Department of Defense, Military Commissions Defense Organization, “The PRB’s present inability to render any decision other than for continued law-of-war detention is particularly pernicious in light of how the government invokes the PRB’s continued operation to minimize judicial scrutiny of the Guantanamo detention regime in federal habeas corpus proceedings”. 

    Transfer of Detainees

    As of April 26th 2022, 20 detainees have been approved for transfer. After a detainee has been deemed non-dangerous by the Periodic Review Board, they are confirmed for release. Should the situation permit, some are transferred back to their homeland. If transfer to homeland is not possible for detainees, due to safety reasons or other reasons, the U.S. works with other countries to release detainees. Legislative prohibitions on the transferring of detainees into the United States have prevented approved detainees from being transferred to the United States. The transfer of detainees to other countries, especially in Europe, has become difficult with the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment.