Where the saying tough on crime came from and how our prison system came to be.
https://www.owu.edu/news-media/from-our-perspective/tough-questions-for-tough-on-crime-policies/
The American image of the “monster-criminal” has a specific history. The notion of essentially malignant beings who stands opposed to respectable society has roots in the 19th-century criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who used now-discredited notions of racial and sexual difference to theorize “the criminal man.” This notion was reimagined in America in the 1970s, when politicians found it useful to raise the specter of “the criminal” to promote an agenda of aggressive incarceration that served both to detract attention from social problems and to control disgruntled social groups.
America’s “monster-criminal” is class- and race-specific. For instance, African Americans do not use or sell drugs any more than whites but are targeted by police and incarcerated for drugs at much greater rates. According to a new study of Chicago’s criminal courts, stark class divisions between court professionals and people in custody have allowed judges and attorneys to refer to defendants as “scum,” “bad guys,” and “mopes” (an epithet signifying lack of work ethic and inherently culpability), even before their trials.
Tellingly, tough-on-crime practices are rarely applied to people of more privileged groups. When the privileged are arrested, their crimes tend to be distinguished as “white-collar crimes.” They tend to receive limited sentences in federal prisons, upon completion of which they are called “former white-collar criminals.” More than a few have been invited to speak about business ethics at major universities. This has allowed people like Walter Pavlo (convicted of a $6 million fraud scheme) to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees while it has spared many of us from imagining someone like ourselves as a “bad person.”
-------
These policies emphasize harsh sentencing, expanded police authority, and limited options for overturning wrongful convictions. As a result, the U.S. has over 2 million people in prison, including nearly 160,000 serving life sentences, some for crimes committed as minors.
Despite claims that these measures enhance public safety, research shows they often fail to achieve this goal. Instead, they can create more insecurity, especially in low-income neighborhoods. For instance, laws meant to curb gang activity and loitering have led to arrests for everyday activities like standing outside a home or waiting for a bus.
The article also points out systemic issues in the justice system. Court delays leave people in jail awaiting trial for extended periods, public defenders are overworked and unable to provide adequate representation for many defendants, and restrictive laws make it hard to challenge wrongful convictions. Once in prison, inmates are vulnerable to abuse, with limited safeguards to protect them from mistreatment by guards.
Stone-Mediatore argues that these policies fail to deliver on their promises and instead perpetuate cycles of insecurity and inequality. She calls for rethinking public safety strategies to address the root causes of crime and foster healthier, more equitable communities.
The American image of the “monster-criminal” has a specific history. The notion of essentially malignant beings who stands opposed to respectable society has roots in the 19th-century criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who used now-discredited notions of racial and sexual difference to theorize “the criminal man.” This notion was reimagined in America in the 1970s, when politicians found it useful to raise the specter of “the criminal” to promote an agenda of aggressive incarceration that served both to detract attention from social problems and to control disgruntled social groups.
America’s “monster-criminal” is class- and race-specific. For instance, African Americans do not use or sell drugs any more than whites but are targeted by police and incarcerated for drugs at much greater rates. According to a new study of Chicago’s criminal courts, stark class divisions between court professionals and people in custody have allowed judges and attorneys to refer to defendants as “scum,” “bad guys,” and “mopes” (an epithet signifying lack of work ethic and inherently culpability), even before their trials.
Tellingly, tough-on-crime practices are rarely applied to people of more privileged groups. When the privileged are arrested, their crimes tend to be distinguished as “white-collar crimes.” They tend to receive limited sentences in federal prisons, upon completion of which they are called “former white-collar criminals.” More than a few have been invited to speak about business ethics at major universities. This has allowed people like Walter Pavlo (convicted of a $6 million fraud scheme) to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees while it has spared many of us from imagining someone like ourselves as a “bad person.”
-------
These policies emphasize harsh sentencing, expanded police authority, and limited options for overturning wrongful convictions. As a result, the U.S. has over 2 million people in prison, including nearly 160,000 serving life sentences, some for crimes committed as minors.
Despite claims that these measures enhance public safety, research shows they often fail to achieve this goal. Instead, they can create more insecurity, especially in low-income neighborhoods. For instance, laws meant to curb gang activity and loitering have led to arrests for everyday activities like standing outside a home or waiting for a bus.
The article also points out systemic issues in the justice system. Court delays leave people in jail awaiting trial for extended periods, public defenders are overworked and unable to provide adequate representation for many defendants, and restrictive laws make it hard to challenge wrongful convictions. Once in prison, inmates are vulnerable to abuse, with limited safeguards to protect them from mistreatment by guards.
Stone-Mediatore argues that these policies fail to deliver on their promises and instead perpetuate cycles of insecurity and inequality. She calls for rethinking public safety strategies to address the root causes of crime and foster healthier, more equitable communities.
36-40, F
