+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Description

I’m u in tip when i get paid  Note that this week provides you with a CHOICE of readings in addition to the Milwaukee 53206 video.  You choose ONE of the Reiman and Leighton chapters and ONE of the Western chapters for your reading.  Do not feel like you need to read all five chapters!  I wanted each of you to be able to choose the topics within the umbrella of poverty and crime that you were most interested in exploring.  You are, of course, welcome to read as many of the readings as you want, but you only have to include one from Reiman and Leighton and one from Western, along with the film, in your essay
Week 12 Overview
This week we continue our exploration of social institutions and poverty by discussing the interaction between poverty and the criminal justice system.  You will also submit your five peer-reviewed journal articles to the Dropbox for your Final Project on the topic we approved in your Virtual Meeting.
After completing this module, students should be able to:
Explain how poverty affects access to and quality of representation within the criminal justice system
Identify differences in how laws are created and applied to people experiencing poverty
Challenge preconceived ideas about how poverty and the criminal justice system intersect
Instructions
Watch Milwaukee 53206 via Kanopy
• Read your choice of one selection from Western’s Punishment and Inequality in America and your choice of one selection from Reiman and Leighton’s The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class and Criminal Justice
• Submit Free Form Essay 4
• Submit the full-text PDFs of the five peer-reviewed journal articles for your final project for review
• Post in at least two of the Discussions for the week and reply to some of your classmates
https://memphis.kanopy.com/memphis/video/milwaukee… 
log 
Grbnsn12
Dellmondra91$$
This is the Dropbox folder for your free-form essay on the criminal justice system and poverty. Be sure that your essay contains no fewer than one full page of text, and is double-spaced in Arial 12pt font with 1 inch margins.  You may upload in .doc, .docx or .pdf format.  No other formats will be accepted.
Choose two prompts from the following list and answer them in at least five sentences each.  Clearly list which prompt you are responding to.  Stating the prompt you will respond to does not count as a sentence of the five minimum requirement.  Prompt 1 – For this prompt, you will respond with your thoughts on at least one section of the Western Punishment and Inequality in America reading.

Prompt 2 – For this prompt, you will respond with your thoughts on at least one section of the Reiman and Leighton The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class and Criminal Justice  reading.

Prompt 3 – For this prompt, you will post your thoughts about the information from the Milwaukee 53206 video.
Prompt 4 – For this prompt, I want to draw your attention to the times that poverty is a factor in a social issue, even if it is left out of the conversation about that issue.  Read this article about prisons and people with mental illnesses:  https://harvardpolitics.com/prisons-the-new-asylums/Did you notice that they never really talked about how poverty is a part of this?  Do you see, though, how it is?  Wealthy people could afford private mental health help, including private in-patient psychiatric hospitals.  Poor families who can’t afford them and no longer have access to state facilities due to deinstitutionalization end up with family members in the corrections system.You can absolutely share your thoughts on this topic, but I want you to go beyond that.  Think of a different social issue in today’s society that poverty impacts, but that isn’t necessarily viewed or heavily discussed as an issue of the poor.  Tell me about the issue and how poverty fits in.
Prompt 5 – For each of the social institutions we study this semester, you will have the option of making a Discussion post that applies what you learned in the module to something you have seen external to class.  Have you seen examples of it in the news or other media, like a television show, song or video game?  Link to it or paste in a screenshot and explain how concepts of poverty are illustrated.Tenth Edition
0-
THE RICH GET RICHER AND
THE POOR GET PRISON
IDEOLOGY, CLASS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Jeffrey Reiman
American University
Paul Leighton
Eastern 1Wichigan University
PEARSON
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Duhai London Madrid :Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City Sao Paolo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Editorial Director: Craig Campanella
Editor in Chief: Dickson Musslewhite
Associate Editor. Mayda Bosco
Editorial Assistant: JosephJantas
Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson
Marketing Manager. Jessica Lasda
J.1arketing Assistant: Zakiyyah Wiley
Production Project Manager. Debbie Ryan
Full Service Project Manager: Rashmi Tickyani/ Aptara®, Inc.
Composition: Aptara®,Inc.
Central Design Manager:Jayne Conte
Prjnfer/Binder/Cover: STP /Courier /Westford
Text Font: Palatino LT Std
Fe
For Satoko,
Credits and ackno,vledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission,
in this textbook appeaI on the appropriate page within text.
Copyright© 2013, 2010, 2007, 2004, 2001, by Jeffrey H. Reiman. All rights reserved.
Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and
permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction,. storage
in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this Vork,
please submit a ·written request to Pearson, Permissions Deparhnent, 1 Lake Street, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed
as trademarks. vVhere those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a
trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Reiman, Jeffrey H.
The rich get richer and the poor get prison: ideology, class, and criminal justice/ Jeffrey
Reiman, Paul Leighton. -10th ed.
p.cm.
Includes index.
ISBN-13, 978-0-205-13772-5
ISBN-!Oc 0-205-13772-5
1. Criminal justice, Administration of-United States.
2. Social classes-United States.
I. Leighton, Paul, 1964— IT. Title.
3. United States-Social policy.
HV9950.R46 2013
364.973–dc23
2012029887
0
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
[BEJRSON
3
2
1
ISBN 10c
0-205-13772-5
ISBN 13c 978-0-205-13772-5
on
: Heist: How the Financial Industry ls BuyJrm,” Newsweek, July 11, 2011, http://www.
‘the-billion-dollar-bank-heist.html.
es, Wall Street Is Tossed a Bone/ New York
imes .com/2011/07/16/bus iness/bu dget-cuts-toef=business.
by Design?” Big Picture Blog, http://www.
‘/-design/:
·ay in Its Boo~,” New York Times, February
>2/03/business/03sec.html? J=l&hpw.
, Transcript,” 2010.
Quadrangle, 1975), pp. 311,314.
,nal Population in the United States, 2010,
xTable 2.
lehind Bars in America 2008, February 2008,
un thes ta tes. org /rep art_deta ii .aspx? id=35904.
, p. 3.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoffhtm; and BJS, ProNC)201932, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.
l)S, Profile o!Jail Inmates 2002, p. 9.
,,, Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Eco-
“// pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032003/perinc/
CHAPTER
4
To the Vanquished
Belong the Spoils
Who Is Winning the Losing
War against Crime?
In eve1y case the laws are made by the ruling party in its own
interest; a democractJ makes democratic laws, a despot autocratic
ones, and so on. By making these laws thetJ define as “just”
for their subjects whatever is for their own interest, and they
call anyone who breaks them a “wrongdoer” and punish
him accordingly.
-THRASYMACHUS, in PLATO’S Republic
), p. 154.
Chapter 4 of The Rich Gets Richer examines how a failing criminal justice system
that neither protects society nor achieves justice is allowed to continue. The
criminal justice system actually fails in three ways: It fails (1) to implement
policies that stand a good chance of reducing crime, (2) to treat as crimes the
harmful acts of the rich and powerful, and (3) to eliminate economic bias in
the criminal justice system.itself. The chapter argues that this happens because
the current system’s failure produces benefits for the wealthy in America.
·· This is due, not to a conspiracy, but to historical inertia-the persistence of a
criminal justice system dating from pre-industrial times, which does not
recognize many of the harmful acts of the well-off. They can go on performing
harmful acts without punishment, while the country remains focused on
street crime and poor minority criminals.
A key idea here is that the criminal justice system contributes to an ideolog,J,
a widely held set of beliefs that justify the status quo and its inequalities. The
criminal justice system does this by conveying the message that the poor are
the worst threat to society, and that their criminality is the result of individual
failings rather than social inequities.
177
178 Chapter 4 • To the Vanquished Belong the Spoils
WHY IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILING?
The streams of our argument flow together at this point in a question: Why is
it happening? We have shown how it is no accident that “the offender at the
end. of the road in prison is likell to be a member of the lowest social and
economic groups in the country.” We have shown that this is not an accurate
group portrait of who threatens society~it is a picture of whom the criminal justice system selects for arrest and imprisonment from among those who
threaten society. It is an image distorted by the shape of the criminal justice
carnival mirror. This much we have seenr and nuw we ,vant to knoiv: Why is
the criminal justice system allowed to function in afashion that neither protects sociehJ
nor achieves justice? Vvhy is the criminal justice system failing?
Answering these questions will require looking at who benefits from
this failure and who suffers from it. We will argue that the rich and powerful
in the United States-those who derive the greatest advantage from the persistence of the social and economic system as it is currently organized-reap
benefits from the failure of criminal justice that has been documented in this
book. However, as noted in the Introduction, this should not lead the reader
to think that our explanation for the current shape of the criminal justice system is a 11 conspiracy theo1y.”
A conspiracy theo1y would argue that the rich and the powerful, seeing
the benefits to be derived from the failure of criminal justice, consciously set
out to use their wealth and power to make it fail. There are many problems
with such a theory. First, it is virtually impossible to prove. If the conspiracy
succeeds, then this is possible only to the extent that it is kept secret. Thus, evidence for a conspiracy would be as difficult to obtain as the conspiracy was
successful. Second, conspiracy theories strain credibility precisely because the
degree of secrecy they would require seems virtually impossible in a society as
open and fractious as our own. If there is a “ruling elite” in the United States
that comprises a group as small as tl1e richest one-thousandth of 1 percent of the
population, it would still be made up of around 3,000 people. To think that a
conspiracy to make the criminal justice system fail in the way it does could be
kept secret among this number of people in a country like ours is just unbelievable. Third, conspiracy theories are not plausible because they do not correspond
to the way most people act most of the time. Although there is no paucity of
conscious mendacity and manipulation in our politics, most people most of the
time seem sincerely to believe that what they are doing is right. Whether this
is a h”ibute to human beings’ creative capacities to rationalize what they do or
merely a matter of their shortsightedness, it seems a fact. For all these reasons,
it is not plausible that so fateful and harmful a policy as the failure of criminal
justice could be purposely maintained by the rich and powerful. Rather, we
need·an explanation that is compatible with believing that policy makers, on the
whole, are simply doing what they sincerely believe is right.
To understand how the Pyrrhic defeat theory explains the current shape
of our failing criminal justice policy, note that this failure is really three failures
that work together. First, there is the failure to implement policies that stand
Chaple
a good chance of reducing crime a
Chapter 1.) Second, there is the fa
the rich and powerful. (This is the
Chapter 2, and it is confirmed by f
there is the failure to eliminate ec
so that the poor continue to have a
people of being arrested, charged
the acts tl1at are treated as crime,
· fourth hypotheses listed in Chapt
sented in Chapter 3.) The effect of
amount of crime-even if criine :
side the control of the criminal j1
certain drugs and the reduction o
second failure is that the acts treat
by the poor. The effect of the thir,
rested and convicted for crimes ai
the three failures working togeth,
the harmful acts of the well-off, ”
the streets and in our homes willcourts and prisons with a large ar
lest it be thought that the public
that polls shows that, though crit
2011, 68 percent of Americans th
than there was the year before. I
rates, never has a majority of ti’e
crime than the previous year. Ir
policy is at once to narrow the F
acts of the poor and to present a c
The Pyrrhic defeat theory a
criminal justice policy, rather the
justice policy and practices that
reflects the mait1 ways in which I
large-scale industrialization; the
duce critne (such as gun control
povertyi reflects a defensive anc
and understandable, if not noble,
bias in the criminal justice systen
qualities that characterize the soc
is puzzling, then, is not how thes
they persist it1 the f’!_ce of their fa:
explanation we offer for this per,
The historical inertia exph
policy persists bec,mse it fails b
live demand for change, for twc
benefits for those with the pow
on those without such pov,.rer.–~ ~
g the Spoils
SYSTEM FAILING?
!her at this point in a question: Why is
, no accident that “the offender at the
,e a member of the lowest social and
iave shown that this is not an accurate
y_:it is a pi~ture of whom the crimimprisonment from among those who
d by the shape of the criminal justice
,n, and now we want to know: Why is
m in afashion that neither protects society
stice system failing?
equire looking at who benefits from
will argue that the rich and powerful
the greatest advantage from the perem as it is currently organized-reap
ice that has been documented in this
ction, this should not lead the reader
rent shape of the criminal justice sys- ·
:hat the rich and the powerful, seeing
re of criminal justice, consciously set
ake it fail. TI1ere are many problems
mpossible to prove. If the conspiracy
extent that it is kept secret. Thus, eviicult to obtain as the conspiracy was
train credibility precisely because the
ns virtually impossible in a society as
s a “ruling elite” in the United States
:hest one-thousandth of 1 percent of the
around 3,000 people. To think that a
rstem fail in the way it does could be
n a country like ours is just unbelieva1sible because they do not correspond
ime. Although there is no paucity of
, our politics, most people most of the
they are doing is right. Whether this
acities to rationalize what they do or
it seems a fact. For all these reasons,
tful a policy as the failure of criminal
y the rich and powerful. Rather, we
h believing that policy makers, on the
,ly believe is right.
,at theory explains the current shape
that this failure is really three failures
1re to implement policies that stand
Chapter 4 • To the Vanquished Belong the Spoils 179
a good chance of reducing crime and the harm it causes. (This was a,·gued in
Chapter 1.) Second, there is the failure to treat as crimes the harmful acts of
the rich and powerful. (This is the first of the hypotheses listed on page 75 in
Chapter 2, and it is confirmed by the evidence presented in Chapter 2.) Tilird,
there is the failure to eliminate economic bias in the criminal justice system,
so that the poor continue to have a substantially greater chance than better-off
people of being arrested, charged, convicted, and penalized for committing
the acts that are treated as crimes. (This corresponds to the second through
fourth hypotheses listed in Chapter 2, and is confirmed by the evidence presented in Chapter 3.) The effect of the first failure is that there remains a large
filllount of crime-even if crime rates dip largely as a result of factors outside the control of the criminal justice system, such as the declining use of
certain drugs and the reduction of lead in the environment. The effect of the
second failure is that the acts treated as crimes are those done predominantly
by the poor. The effect of the third failure is that the individuals who are arrested and convicted for crimes are predominantly poor people. The effect of
the three failures working together is that we are largely unprotected against
the harmful acts of the well-off, while at the same time we are confronted on
the streets and in our homes with a real and large threat of crime, and in the
courts and prisons with a large and visible population of poor criminals. And
lest it be thought that the public does not feel tru·eatened by crime, consider
that polls shows that, though crime was down from the early 1990s through
2011, 68 percent of Americans that year believed that there was more crime
than there was the year before. During roughly 20 years of declining crime
rates, never has a majority of the public expressed a belief that there was less
crime than the previous year.2 In short, the effect of current criminal justice
policy is at once to narrow the public’s conception of what is dangerous to
acts of the poor and to present a convincing embodiment of this danger.
The Pyrrhic defeat theory aims to explain the persistence of this failing
criminal justice policy, rather than its origins. It is not the origin of criminal
justice policy and practices that is puzzling. The focus on one-on-one harm
reflects the main ways in which people harmed each other in the days before
large-scale industrialization; the refusal to implement policies that might reduce crime (such as gun control or legalization of heroin or amelioration of
poverty) reflects a defensive and punitive response to crime that is natural
and understandable, if not noble and farsighted; and the existence of economic
bias in the criminal justice system reflects the real economic and political inequalities that characterize the society in which that system is embedded. What
is puzzling, then, is not how these policies Cfillle to be what they are, but why
they persist in the face of their failure to achieve either security or justice. The
explanation we offer for this persistence is called “historical inertia.”
The historical inertia explanation argues that current criminal justice
policy persists because it fails in a way that does not give rise to an effective demand for change, for two reasons. First, this failing system provides
benefits for those with the power to make changes, while it imposes costs
on those without such power. Second, because the criminal justice system
180
Chapter 4 • To the Vanquished Belong the Spoils
shapes the public’s conception of what is dangerous, it creates the impression that the harms it is fighting are the real threats to society-thus, even
when people see that the system is less than a roaring success, they only demand more of the same: 1nore police, more prisons, longer prison sentences,
and so on.
Consider first the benefits that the system provides for those with wealth
and power. We have argued that the triple failure of criminal justice policy
diverts attention from the harmful noncriminal acts of the well-off and confronts us in our homes and on our streets with a real, substantial threat of
crime, and in the courts and prisons with a large and visible population of
poor criminals. TI1is conveys a vivid image to the American people, namely,
that there is a real threat to our lives and limbs, and it is a threat from the poor.
Titis image provides benefits to the rich and powerful in America. It carries an
ideological message that serves to protect their wealth and privilege. Speaking
generally, the message is this:
Ch,
f TJI.BLE 4.1.
CriminalVicti111iz~
i c,f Persohal.Victiniizati.o.np~f J
l Estimated Rate of Pro~erty Crij
Type of
Victimization
Less tha
$7,500
Crimes of violence
Robbery with injury
Rape/sexual assault
Aggravated assault
Household burglary
Theft
43.5
1.8*
4.4*
9.3
44.4
120.4
*Based on 10 or fewer cases.
• The threat to law-abiding Middle America comes from below them on
the economic ladder, not above them.
• The poor are morally defective, and thus their poverty is their own fault,
not a symptom of social or economic injustice.
The effect of this message is to create (or reinforce) in Americans fear
of, and hostility toward, the poor. It leads Americans to ignore the ways in
which they are injured and robbed by the acts of the affluent (as catalogued
in Chapter 2), and leads them to demand harsher doses of “law and order”
aimed mainly at the lower classes. Most importantly, it nudges Americans
toward a conservative defense of American society with its large disparities
of wealth, power, and opportunity-and nudges them away from a progressive demand for equality and a more equitable distribution of wealth and
povver.
On the other hand, but equally important, is that those who are mainly
victimized by the failure to reduce our high rates of street crime are by and
large the poor themselves. The people who are hurt the most by the failure
of the criminal justice system are those with the least power to change it.
Households with an annual income of less than $7,500 were victims of violent crimes at a rate nearly four times that of households earning $75,000 and
above. Indeed, as Table 4.1 shows, rates of victimization by crimes in all categories are substantially higher for the poorest segment of the population,
and drop dramatically as we ascend the economic ladder.
The difference in the rates of property-crime victimization between rich
and poor understates the difference in the harms that result. The poor are far
less likely than the affluent to have insurance against theft, and because they
have little to start with, what they lose to theft takes a much deeper bite out of
their ability to meet their basic needs. Needless to add, the various noncrintinal harms documented in Chapter 2, (for example, occupational hazards, pollution, poverty, and so on) also fall more harshly on workers and those at the
bottom of society than on those at the top.
Source: BJS, Criminal Victimization in th
Table 10 (Burglary and Theft); BJS, C1
2008~Statistical Tables, March 2010, 1-
To summarize: Those ,,vh
crime (and the failure to treat n
lion to change criminal justice
the policy are not seriously ha
benefits to them from that fail,
justice policy is created to aclti
Instead, the claim is that the c1
meal over time and usually wi
tltis distribution of benefits and
happens to produce this distri
criminal justice system among J
cause the criminal justice syst,
dangerous, it effectively lintits I
to incremental changes in existi
Before proceeding, it is wo
the larger “criminal justice indu
as it is. They have a vested inte:
defeat reforms that would redu
lion dollar for-profit businesses
and/ or manage government p:
mandatory minirninn sentence,
utes led to the rapid and enormc
the past 40 years. That growth p
that continue because of the fir
duce the number of inmates in
This has given states an incenti
he Spoils
.s dangerous, it creates the impres-
‘ real threats to society-thus, even
1an a roaring success, they only dere prisons, longer prison sentences,
Chapter 4 • To the Vanquished Belong the Spoils
181
TABLE 4.1 … C::rimin~IVi~timizatio~ byfaniily lnio111~ (2°’~8 J:sd111atii,{~ate
of _Pers.anal Victi111izati?n p~i 1,0QO Persp:n{~ge 1i ardplder;’~ncf _2010 ·•
· Es.t_ imiited
Rate
of Property
Crime ·–par1,000
Ho~sehl)ld_..s) ‘· . . …·
._,:-_ :
-.- .. ‘-‘
,_.
. -..
. _, -:
._·,- ‘-,.
;
-·;
“‘.
_
-_,
·-.-,,
‘.”,”‘·
Family Income
stein provides for those with wealth
,le failure of’criminal justice policy
iminal acts of the well-off and conts with a real, substantial threat of
h a large and visible population of
;e to the American people, namely,
·mbs, and it is a threat from the poor.
,d powerful in America. It carries an
1eir wealth and privilege. Speaking
Type of
Less than
$7,500
$7,500 to
14,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$75,000 or
Victimization .
Crimes of violence
Robbery with injury
Rape/sexual assault
Aggravated assault
Household burglary
Theft
43.5
1.8*
4.4*
9.3
44.4
120.4
40.4
1.7*
2.1 *
8.6
47.2.
117.3
25.4
0.6*
0.6*
3.4
27.1
99.4
12.6
0.3*
0.5*
1.9
16.7
97.5
More
*Based on 10 or fewer cases.
merica comes from below them on
l.
hus their poverty is their own fault,
injustice.
te (or reinforce) in Americans fear
s Americans to ignore the ways in
, acts ofthe affluent (as catalogued
. harsher doses of “law and order”
in1portantly, it nudges Americans
n society with its large disparities
nudges them away from a progresaitable distribution of wealth and
,rtant, is that those who are mainly
gh rates of street crin1e are by and
10 are hurt the most by the failure
Nith the least power to change it.
;s than $7,500 were victims of vioof households earning $75,000 and
f victimization by crin1es in all catoorest segment of the population,
anomic ladder.
y-crin1e victimization between rich
harms that result. The poor are far
1ce against theft, and because they
,eft takes a much deeper bite out of
:Hess to add, the various noncrimi
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!