Dear Students:
I am looking forward to an exciting semester of readings, discussion, and documentaries on the prison industrial complex, the economy, and politics. I am Prof. Andrea Y. Simpson, but I have shortened that moniker to “ProfSi”–it’s quicker to type and easy to say–“Prof-See”. Some of you have already taken a course from me, which pleases me greatly since I will get to know you better.
Learning will be fun,
ProfSi
In chapters 4-6 of Are Prisons Obsolete? (this platform will not let me italicize) Angela Y. Davis discusses two specific ideas that contribute to the book’s main argument: the United States’ prison system is obsolete because it does not serve its intended purpose— rehabilitation. The first of these ideas is that the nature of punishment in the United States has starkly gendered characteristics that have not manifested in isolation but rather reflect the deeply gendered structure of larger society. Davis’ discussion of the impact of gender in the prison system is grounded in a thorough explication of the history of the penitentiary in the United States. She highlights that from the emergence of imprisonment as the primary mode of punishment, convicted women were viewed differently than convicted men. This difference— she contends—- is rooted in traditional perceptions of masculinity and femininity; masculine criminality has always been an understood, normal phenomenon, but feminine criminality was always synonymous with insanity. Female convicts were also treated differently from their male counterparts because—unlike men, who were considered citizens and therefore possessed rights outside of prison—- women convicts were assumed to have forfeited rights that they didn’t even possess in the free world. Women could not participate in the process of “redemption,” for they were labeled as “fallen women,” women who transgressed fundamental principles of womanhood, and were thus incapable of the salvation prison was intended to provide. Women were not provided with special arrangements (in other words, they were not housed separately from men), and instead of being subject to traditionally harsh practices—such as isolation—- women were subject to sexual abuse. Even when early prison reformers such as Quakers initially argued for reform in the prison system— contending that women could achieve salvation—their proposed reforms were not only marked with gender inequality but led to deeply racist outcomes. Quakers advocated that womens’ cells be replaced with cottages to “infuse domesticity” (motherhood and wifehood) back into women. However, Angela Y. Davis emphasizes that these “feminizations” were ideologically designed to “transform” affluent, white women— not women of color.
Despite the obvious influence of gender in punishment and the insurgence of women as the fastest growing sector of the US prison population, Davis contends that people not only fail to recognize the importance of these issues and the influence gender still holds over the modern prison system, but they also fail to recognize that these early conceptions of female criminality continue to shape modern prison practices. The parallelism between female insanity and female criminality is still apparent in the disproportionate rates in which women convicts are given or prescribed psychiatric drugs in comparison to male convicts. In addition, and most importantly, women are still subjected to institutionalized sexual abuse. Davis emphasizes the state-implemented strip search procedure as a clear example of the prevalence of this abuse. During a strip search, officers examine the genital and anal areas of the suspect (in the case, a female convict) to ensure that the individual does not possess hidden contraband. Davis emphasizes that if officers were not adorned with a uniform or the safety of the state’s power, these practices would be sexual assault. Additionally, the effects of the intersectionality of race and gender in the prison system have also manifested in modern realities. Angela Y. Davis contends that the prison incarceration rate for black women exceeds that of white men, and Native American women are drastically overrepresented in the prison system, constituting 25% of the entire female prison population.
One aspect of this chapter that piqued my interest was the influence of feminist attitudes on the treatment of women in prison. Davis highlights that the growth of feminism not only led to calls for “separate but equal” institutions but subsequently equal treatment of men and women in institutions. In other words, feminist arguments led to more repressive conditions for female convicts (even going so far to include the equal right to be fired at). I was particularly struck by Davis’ phraseology and characterization of these requests; she described them as “bizarre.” Although she clearly believes in the complete abolition of these practices, I was surprised that she considered these feminist requests ‘bizarre.’ Although these requests certainly result in bizarre outcomes…would you say that these requests for equal treatment in the prison system were bizarre? Even more importantly, would you say that these repressive conditions were truly an establishment of a new frontier for female punishment in the prison system? Considering the record of sexual abuse women endured, did feminists truly need to fight for women to receive equally repressive punishment in comparison to their male counterparts? Weren’t they already experiencing violence, although it manifested itself differently?
The second argument Angela Y. Davis makes is that the prison industrial complex (PIC) has had an integral role in the dramatic increase in prison populations in the United States (despite public perception that an increase in crime has driven the increase in incarcerated individuals). She argues that the PIC is a carefully curated system “driven by ideologies of racism and the pursuit of profit” that has not only made punishment a reliable aspect of the larger economy but pursues profit at the expense of social damage (84). In making this argument, she contends that the PIC and the military industrial complex have a symbiotic relationship, for they both prioritize profit at the expense of damage to communities of color. This damage is evident in the current rates of incarceration; according to data from 2002, African Americans represented the majority of prisoners in federal, state, and county prisons (803,400 individuals). Davis highlights that the racial composition of prisons is approaching the composition of black prisoners to white prisoners during the southern convict lease and county chain gang system. These systems all have direct incentive to keep prisoners for as long as possible.
In addition, Davis emphasizes the complexity and encompassing nature of the PIC by highlighting that even organizations and realms that appear completely removed from the PIC— such as the medical and scientific research field— are actually profiteers from its capabilities. Medical research specifically profited from full prison populations, as many researchers used prisoners as subjects for their experiments. Davis highlights that even if private prisons were abolished, the PIC’s many strategies for profit would still exist, for many companies profit by selling their products to correctional facilities (such as cellular service providers like Verizon). This led me to wonder…is there truly a way that the profiteering powers of the PIC can be entirely addressed? If commodities are required in correctional facilities, as they are, how can we expect companies to provide their services for free? Although there are clearly ethical concerns on this front, what role do fundamental business practices play or should be allowed to play?
Davis concludes the book with proposed abolitionist alternatives, policies and recommendations that could—over time— remedy the deep-seated, systemic issues present in the current prison system. She highlights that we, collectively, find it hard to imagine alternatives to prison. However, Davis emphasizes that we must let go of our desire to find a quick, alternative solution to prison, and adopt more complicated frameworks that yield real results. In other words, proper solutions will not merely be “prison substitutes” but deep-seated change that removes prison from the social and ideological landscapes of our society and minds. Davis contends that a revitalization of schools— a process that would eliminate violence from schools— is the most powerful alternative to jails and prisons. While the quality of education individuals receive may be adequate, Davis implies that the need for the revitalization of the education system is based upon the need for a change in environment. The presence of armed security guards, police officers, and metal detectors throughout various levels of the school system not only impedes learning but act as “prison conduits.”
This point reminded me of our in class discussions about Dr. Simpson’s experience teaching inmates. Specifically, I was reminded of inmates’ eagerness to learn. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 52% of state prison inmates and 57% of federal prison inmates have taken education classes since admission to a correctional facility. Although emphasizing education (and the impact of school in general) when an individual is already incarcerated strays from Davis’ point, I believe it is important to note that the value of education already appears to be recognized by individuals who have both experienced the realities of incarceration and failing school systems. As Davis implies, many incarcerated individuals’ prior school experiences have been ones riddled with violence. Regardless of these negative experiences—- and much to my surprise—over half of the inmate population in state and federal US prisons (according to the data above) express a desire to return to learning. This leads me to believe that a revitalization of the education system would have uniquely beneficial outcomes on the lives of young people in historically oppressed communities, for if inmates are eager to learn— despite previously difficult educational experiences— how eager will they be to learn if school was always a safe, nurturing space?
Davis also calls for further mental health and drug rehabilitation facilities, specifically free facilities where individuals of all socioeconomic statuses can seek treatment, and further defense of immigrants rights. Overall, she emphasizes the need for society to separate crime from punishment and opt for restorative law practices rather than criminal law practices.
The final aspect of the book that I was uniquely affected by was one of her last sentences, which contended that when an individual commits a crime we should not first think of the punishment that should be inflicted but rather we should ask…why do these things happen? Why was this crime committed? Personally, I believe that this question encapsulates her message; nothing occurs in a vacuum, but rather everything is a reflection or extension of greater societal systems and structures. In order to combat these issues, we must not only acknowledge the corrupt systems that are in place, but we must commit ourselves to understanding them.
**note when I first posted the blog, the platform somehow erased my indentations marking separate paragraphs so I am attempting to resubmit it here in order to fix this problem***
In chapters 4-6 of Are Prisons Obsolete? (this platform will not let me italicize) Angela Y. Davis discusses two specific ideas that contribute to the book’s main argument: the United States’ prison system is obsolete because it does not serve its intended purpose— rehabilitation. The first of these ideas is that the nature of punishment in the United States has starkly gendered characteristics that have not manifested in isolation but rather reflect the deeply gendered structure of larger society. Davis’ discussion of the impact of gender in the prison system is grounded in a thorough explication of the history of the penitentiary in the United States. She highlights that from the emergence of imprisonment as the primary mode of punishment, convicted women were viewed differently than convicted men. This difference— she contends—- is rooted in traditional perceptions of masculinity and femininity; masculine criminality has always been an understood, normal phenomenon, but feminine criminality was always synonymous with insanity. Female convicts were also treated differently from their male counterparts because—unlike men, who were considered citizens and therefore possessed rights outside of prison—- women convicts were assumed to have forfeited rights that they didn’t even possess in the free world. Women could not participate in the process of “redemption,” for they were labeled as “fallen women,” women who transgressed fundamental principles of womanhood, and were thus incapable of the salvation prison was intended to provide. Women were not provided with special arrangements (in other words, they were not housed separately from men), and instead of being subject to traditionally harsh practices—such as isolation—- women were subject to sexual abuse. Even when early prison reformers such as Quakers initially argued for reform in the prison system— contending that women could achieve salvation—their proposed reforms were not only marked with gender inequality but led to deeply racist outcomes. Quakers advocated that womens’ cells be replaced with cottages to “infuse domesticity” (motherhood and wifehood) back into women. However, Angela Y. Davis emphasizes that these “feminizations” were ideologically designed to “transform” affluent, white women— not women of color.
Despite the obvious influence of gender in punishment and the insurgence of women as the fastest growing sector of the US prison population, Davis contends that people not only fail to recognize the importance of these issues and the influence gender still holds over the modern prison system, but they also fail to recognize that these early conceptions of female criminality continue to shape modern prison practices. The parallelism between female insanity and female criminality is still apparent in the disproportionate rates in which women convicts are given or prescribed psychiatric drugs in comparison to male convicts. In addition, and most importantly, women are still subjected to institutionalized sexual abuse. Davis emphasizes the state-implemented strip search procedure as a clear example of the prevalence of this abuse. During a strip search, officers examine the genital and anal areas of the suspect (in the case, a female convict) to ensure that the individual does not possess hidden contraband. Davis emphasizes that if officers were not adorned with a uniform or the safety of the state’s power, these practices would be sexual assault. Additionally, the effects of the intersectionality of race and gender in the prison system have also manifested in modern realities. Angela Y. Davis contends that the prison incarceration rate for black women exceeds that of white men, and Native American women are drastically overrepresented in the prison system, constituting 25% of the entire female prison population.
One aspect of this chapter that piqued my interest was the influence of feminist attitudes on the treatment of women in prison. Davis highlights that the growth of feminism not only led to calls for “separate but equal” institutions but subsequently equal treatment of men and women in institutions. In other words, feminist arguments led to more repressive conditions for female convicts (even going so far to include the equal right to be fired at). I was particularly struck by Davis’ phraseology and characterization of these requests; she described them as “bizarre.” Although she clearly believes in the complete abolition of these practices, I was surprised that she considered these feminist requests ‘bizarre.’ Although these requests certainly result in bizarre outcomes…would you say that these requests for equal treatment in the prison system were bizarre? Even more importantly, would you say that these repressive conditions were truly an establishment of a new frontier for female punishment in the prison system? Considering the record of sexual abuse women endured, did feminists truly need to fight for women to receive equally repressive punishment in comparison to their male counterparts? Weren’t they already experiencing violence, although it manifested itself differently?
The second argument Angela Y. Davis makes is that the prison industrial complex (PIC) has had an integral role in the dramatic increase in prison populations in the United States (despite public perception that an increase in crime has driven the increase in incarcerated individuals). She argues that the PIC is a carefully curated system “driven by ideologies of racism and the pursuit of profit” that has not only made punishment a reliable aspect of the larger economy but pursues profit at the expense of social damage (84). In making this argument, she contends that the PIC and the military industrial complex have a symbiotic relationship, for they both prioritize profit at the expense of damage to communities of color. This damage is evident in the current rates of incarceration; according to data from 2002, African Americans represented the majority of prisoners in federal, state, and county prisons (803,400 individuals). Davis highlights that the racial composition of prisons is approaching the composition of black prisoners to white prisoners during the southern convict lease and county chain gang system. These systems all have direct incentive to keep prisoners for as long as possible.
In addition, Davis emphasizes the complexity and encompassing nature of the PIC by highlighting that even organizations and realms that appear completely removed from the PIC— such as the medical and scientific research field— are actually profiteers from its capabilities. Medical research specifically profited from full prison populations, as many researchers used prisoners as subjects for their experiments. Davis highlights that even if private prisons were abolished, the PIC’s many strategies for profit would still exist, for many companies profit by selling their products to correctional facilities (such as cellular service providers like Verizon). This led me to wonder…is there truly a way that the profiteering powers of the PIC can be entirely addressed? If commodities are required in correctional facilities, as they are, how can we expect companies to provide their services for free? Although there are clearly ethical concerns on this front, what role do fundamental business practices play or should be allowed to play?
Davis concludes the book with proposed abolitionist alternatives, policies and recommendations that could—over time— remedy the deep-seated, systemic issues present in the current prison system. She highlights that we, collectively, find it hard to imagine alternatives to prison. However, Davis emphasizes that we must let go of our desire to find a quick, alternative solution to prison, and adopt more complicated frameworks that yield real results. In other words, proper solutions will not merely be “prison substitutes” but deep-seated change that removes prison from the social and ideological landscapes of our society and minds. Davis contends that a revitalization of schools— a process that would eliminate violence from schools— is the most powerful alternative to jails and prisons. While the quality of education individuals receive may be adequate, Davis implies that the need for the revitalization of the education system is based upon the need for a change in environment. The presence of armed security guards, police officers, and metal detectors throughout various levels of the school system not only impedes learning but act as “prison conduits.”
This point reminded me of our in class discussions about Dr. Simpson’s experience teaching inmates. Specifically, I was reminded of inmates’ eagerness to learn. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 52% of state prison inmates and 57% of federal prison inmates have taken education classes since admission to a correctional facility. Although emphasizing education (and the impact of school in general) when an individual is already incarcerated strays from Davis’ point, I believe it is important to note that the value of education already appears to be recognized by individuals who have both experienced the realities of incarceration and failing school systems. As Davis implies, many incarcerated individuals’ prior school experiences have been ones riddled with violence. Regardless of these negative experiences—- and much to my surprise—over half of the inmate population in state and federal US prisons (according to the data above) express a desire to return to learning. This leads me to believe that a revitalization of the education system would have uniquely beneficial outcomes on the lives of young people in historically oppressed communities, for if inmates are eager to learn— despite previously difficult educational experiences— how eager will they be to learn if school was always a safe, nurturing space?
Davis also calls for further mental health and drug rehabilitation facilities, specifically free facilities where individuals of all socioeconomic statuses can seek treatment, and further defense of immigrants rights. Overall, she emphasizes the need for society to separate crime from punishment and opt for restorative law practices rather than criminal law practices.
The final aspect of the book that I was uniquely affected by was one of her last sentences, which contended that when an individual commits a crime we should not first think of the punishment that should be inflicted but rather we should ask…why do these things happen? Why was this crime committed? Personally, I believe that this question encapsulates her message; nothing occurs in a vacuum, but rather everything is a reflection or extension of greater societal systems and structures. In order to combat these issues, we must not only acknowledge the corrupt systems that are in place, but we must commit ourselves to understanding them.
I will now develop a summary of what I read in the reading on race, gender, and the prison industrial complex in order to discuss it in class later on. First of all, as a context and basis on which to work, it is worth mentioning the United Nations World Conference on Women and their Rights, since women and their rights are considered part of human rights. This is very important because in the case of American prisons many of the requirements are not met. It recognizes that violence against women in both the public and private spheres is a violation of human rights. The reading stresses the importance of recognizing women’s rights as human rights and paying more attention to the hidden and alarming problem of violence faced by women in prison.
On the other hand, when referring to the prison-industrial complex, it suggests that the growth of the prison system is related to economic and political factors rather than individual behavior. Similarly, many corporations benefit from the prison system, creating vested interests in its expansion, often at the expense of marginalized communities, especially people of color. This underscores that while women make up a small percentage of the overall prison population, they are currently the fastest growing segment, with California being a prime example.
Considering another influential factor, globalization is also contributing to the growth of this prison complex. Because capitalism in the developed world has led to the decline of welfare states and social programs have replaced incarceration as the solution to social problems that disproportionately affect poor communities and communities of color. The prison-industrial complex relies on racist structures and elements that contribute to its economic survival while reinforcing racial hierarchies and inequality. This systemic racism also has a gender dimension, as it affects women differently based on their race and sexuality.
Racial disparities in incarceration are clear African-American women are eight times more likely to be incarcerated than white women, and the “war on drugs” contributes to this phenomenon, as it represents one form of increased incarceration of women of color. Cases such as Kemba Smith and Dorothy Gaines illustrate the harsh penalties imposed on women indirectly related to drug trafficking. Another notable phenomenon is violence against women in prisons, and the continued existence of violence in prisons, from state practices to relationships between prison staff and violent inmates. This violence can be not only physical but also psychological. Prisons are often used to incarcerate people with mental illness, but this has the opposite effect and worsens their conditions. Mental illness is prevalent in this area, it is generally underdiagnosed and untreated, and there is also a tendency to misdiagnose mental illness, which has a serious impact on inmates. But this applies to the health care system, to medical malpractice that sometimes leads to preventable deaths, and to reproductive rights, which are not adequately addressed even in prisons.
As well, we must address the issue of sexual harassment and abuse, which is prevalent in women’s prisons and is further reinforced by oppressive prison environments and the employment of male prison staff. The criminalization of sex often results in prison sentences, especially for women who engage in sex work. Laws against sex work disproportionately affect poor women and perpetuate the cycle of incarceration. In addition, as a result of racial and gender bias, increasing numbers of girls, particularly girls of color, are being referred to the juvenile justice system for minor acts. In addition, immigrant women face various forms of surveillance and punishment in the United States, exacerbated by campaigns targeting immigrant communities, including the forced deportation of women with criminal convictions. Finally, legal challenges to women’s incarceration are becoming increasingly difficult due to the erosion of legal protections and the obstacles created by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.