Mass imprisonment as unresolved structural conflict in America

Role of Microaggression in Mass Incarceration
A considerable portion of literature on the subject of conflict resolution generally considers crime within domestic “conflict- free” groups in the nation as an issue that lies, to a certain extent, beyond the scope of exploration or intervention. Researchers typically do not raise questions pertaining to normative suppositions surrounding victimhood and criminality; the accounts of offenders reflect them as independent players, with the offenses they perpetrate being presented as acts of one- directional damage. For dealing with crime, the US has resorted to mass imprisonment from the multitude of potential solutions – a choice that has major consequences for criminals’ as well as their victims’ self- and social- perception. Narrative analyses indicate that mass imprisonment is the result of a long- drawn- out latent conflict, evidently supported by cultural and structural violence, and maintained by public accounts dating back several generations (Allen, 1995, 12).
Mass imprisonment does not come under regular conflict conceptualizations, frequently criminalizing victimhood, victimizing offenders and making the criminal/ victim dichotomy complicated. Re-visualizing crime as an outcome of conflict permits flexibility in interpretation; the roles of crime participants and entities impacted are less defined. Re- visualizing offenses’ narrative framing demonstrates the profound potential effect of narratives as interventions on conflict resolution theoreticians and practitioners, in addition to all participating entities’ legal outcomes and individual experiences.
The US has consistently displayed the highest global incarceration rates since the year 2002. While inmate populations have been growing in some areas across the globe, natural imprisonment rates for nations similar to America are typically 100 inmates for every 100,000 residents of the nation. For America, this rate as of 2010 was around 500 inmates for every 100,000 residents (i.e., roughly 1.6 million inmates), as per BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) figures.
Males constitute ninety percent of local jail and state prison populations, with their incarceration rate being fourteen times greater than that for females. Further, they are surprisingly young, most of them being 20 - 35 years of age. Moreover, inmates typically have low educational attainment: on an average, state inmates only complete the 10th grade. Approximately 70% fail to graduate high school. Imprisonment rates have been found to be substantially higher in case of Latinos and African- Americans as compared to White-Americans. According to 2010 estimates, the African- American male incarceration rate was 3,074 inmates for every 100,000 residents and that of Latinos was 1,258 inmates for every 100,000. Meanwhile, the figure for White males was 459 for every 100,000. But a slight downturn has been witnessed since the year 2007, and the inmate population three years later witnessed a rare drop of 0.3% (for the very first time since the year 1972, as per BJS records) (Allen, 1995, 62).
America has a rather more political character than that commonly acknowledged by CAR (conflict analysis and resolution), with criminal accounts impacting people’s understanding of criminals, race, and crime victims. Though several types of offenses are perpetrated in the nation, this study will be restricted to those reaching the nation’s judicial system.
While the year 2010 saw a decline in incarceration rates in as many as thirty- four states, they underwent an increase in the remaining, with the highest growths reported in Iowa, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Illinois.
In the Southern States, where imprisonment rates have traditionally remained high, the imprisonment rate is roughly twice that of Northeastern states. Latest policies encouraging law enforcers to be firm with criminals are chiefly accountable for the growth in Southern inmate populations and their prolonged incarceration. The state depicting the highest imprisonment rate in America is Louisiana (867 inmates for every 100,000 residents) (Allen, 1995, 54).
Table 1
Male and Female Imprisonment Rates by Region, 2010

Total
Male
Female

United States
500
943
67

  Northeast
296
577
27

  Midwest
389
735
53

  South
552
1,039
78

  West
418
772
60



In second place is Texas State with 648 inmates for every 100,000 people. However, the state, together with other states known for their harsh sentencing, have started controlling crime and associated costs through developing more varied correctional systems including expanded drug therapy and parole practice modifications. Owing to such measures, the BJS claims that a never- before- seen trend of prison releases exceeding admissions has been witnessed in the nation (Dilts, 2012, 191-194).
African- Americans, in particular African- American youth, are disproportionately imprisoned. A fresh analysis by a sociologist from Washington University, Becky Pettit, revealed that as of 2008, African- American males aged 18 - 34 years were no less than 6 times more prone to being imprisoned as compared to their White counterparts. The author of the study states that youth who haven’t graduated high school depicted greater incarceration likelihood (37%) on a given day as compared to that of being seen at work (26%).
Table 2
Percentage of Male Civilian Incarceration, by Race and Education, Ages 20-34

1990
2000
2008

White Men
1.1
1.6
1.8

  Less Than High School
3.8
7.7
12.0

  High School Graduate
1.4
2.3
2.0

  Some College
0.4
0.3
0.3

Black Men
8.3
11.2
11.4

  Less Than High School
19.6
30.2
37.2

  High School Graduate
7.1
11.7
9.1

  Some College
2.9
2.1
2.1



Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress (New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 2012).
Evaluations of incarcerated populations’ high school diploma attainment fail to suggest any improvement in the gap between Whites’ and Blacks’ high school diploma attainment since the former part of the 1990s. According to estimates, this gap has been nearly the same as its present level (11 pp (percentage points)) over most of the last two decades.
Further information on socially-marginalized populations such as less- educated African-American youth is direly required for most efficiently understanding disparity patterns and causes within the nation (Dilts, 2012, 191-194)
Considering the dearth of published works revolving around crime within the nation (issued in conflict and peace related publications), one may reasonably presume that the field basically perceives crime within the nation’s “conflict free” societies as an issue lying fairly beyond the scope of examination or intervention. In fact, most scholarly papers and books on the subject of domestic crime rest within criminological research.
CAR lends its techniques to understanding or resolving crime, chiefly dealing with interpersonal conflict via resolution strategies like restorative justice, mediation, and criminal- victim conferencing, besides other smaller- scale strategies (Umbreit, Coates & Robert, 2000).
Certain fields such as criminology, political science, history, law, and urban development, deal with domestic crimes. But experts in these fields are inconsistent in their questioning of normative theories. In several instances, accounts of offenders generally reflect them as independent players, with the offenses they perpetrate being presented as acts of one-directional damage (Lammers et al., 2015, 45), or Criminalizing Victimhood and Victimizing Offenders (Campbell et al., 2015, 109).
Within the present context, one can view crime using a structural point of view (Rengifo&Stemmen, 2015, 32); additionally, it can be tackled by perceiving it as behavioral and structural elements combined (Sampson &Laub, 2005, 67). Offending, within such contexts, is simply an issue to be resolved and not a matter to be meta- analyzed. This ensures the maintenance of innate social dynamics.
The crux of the argument may be articulated as follows: Within the United States, accounts of criminals indicate that crime- players have neither been portrayed as being organized in groups, nor do they possess broader group goals or interests. Rather, their motives are only personal in nature. These interests and intents have frequently been portrayed within accounts of criminals as immoral (for instance, violent offenses) or material (for instance, property crimes), bypassing the need for critical questioning of how certain behaviors may be deemed to be an offense. Such portrayals underline players’ alleged inhumanity (Dilts, 2012, 191-194).
It is a known fact that Blacks (one of the several population groups that has been targeted owing to their race’s social structure) have commonly been linked to crime such that they are presumed to be guilty prior to the actual occurrence of any suspicious or wrong activity.
Very often, crime in the nation has been assumed to have no political support or context, thereby being gullibly deemed to be a space that lies beyond the field of political control. CAR’s power has been devoted to comprehending large systems of humans in which people mostly act for other people within their personal political, identity, or other group, not leaving any space for conventional American criminal narratives. The absence of CAR from this discussion promotes a punitive self-deception, eventually playing a role in sustaining an unfair system.
Within a discipline whose conflict-related language encompasses terminology such as “status”, “values”, “resources”, and “power” (Coser, 1956, 98) and “incompatible aspirations” and “interests” (Pruitt & Kim, 1986, 205), “common criminal” accounts are not related or applicable: small- scale crime accounts are just not in agreement with conventional emphases on conflict entities. In case of conflicts occurring in large systems, as has normally been covered by experts in the area, entities realize that a disagreement exists and their aims or interests prominently feature in their minds.
Sticking to the above logic, when an offense is perpetrated, it is restricted to a “conflict- free” atmosphere, thereby being assumed to be unrelated to CAR. This is possibly why CAR frequently tackles only those offenses that have a global scope, like war crimes, domestic terrorism, or a crime against humanity (e.g., in United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1820).
Greater attention must be paid to crime within America from a conflict analysis perspective. Clearly, targeted Black treatment in the event they are found engaged in allegedly suspicious activity or actually convicted for crimes is practically identical to similar targeted abuse of other minority or oppressed communities within instances of typical conflict.
Despite the affirmed individual character of felonious conduct, the American legal system ensures economic and societal isolation of Black Americans, described by Michelle Alexander (2010) as a kind of “social control”. Such a legacy of societal control has reified as well as advanced historical differences and racial grievances, maintaining a dormant conflict which is typically not addressed by American public discussions. The narrative of the status quo is concealed by discussions of appropriate reactions to crime, politics and policy.
In reaction to the deteriorating philosophical realpolitik hegemony, the long- drawn- out social conflict concept emerged, which captured current local and dormant societal conflict in a never- before- seen way (Ramsbotham et al., 2012, 74). Up until then, in analysis as well as theory, conceptual boundaries endured between internal and external social conflicts. Azar’s (1978) previous works on long-drawn-out social conflict dealt with a study of explicit violent civil wars and interstate conflicts.
At that point in time, experts in the field classified different analytical levels, typically discounting conflicts of a latent or non- violent nature (Ramsbotham et al., 2012, 456). Within a scholarly domain used to prioritizing violent global- scale conflict, Azar effected a change in focus, laying emphasis on the fuzzy lines between external and internal players and sources, evolving goals, players, and targets without an explicit start and end point, and multiple causative elements and dynamics (Ramsbotham et al., 2012, 123). This novel conceptual framework presented by the author stressed the fact that it is possible for conflicts to take place within state boundaries and beyond the scope of influence of global affairs (in other words, beyond conventional seats of authority) (Ramsbotham et al., 2012, 65). Moreover, he concentrated on the huge complexity of conflict as arbitrated by domestic status quo as well as by superpowers (Azar 1978), which is exactly where the problem of domestic crimes as conflict may be found.
With a certain amount of revision, Azar’s long-drawn-out social conflict idea is able to capture political and societal dynamics between race, crime, and the US government. The idea is believed to encapsulate what the author, in his 1990 work, called the overall disarticulation between society and the government – a phenomenon that is witnessed in the nation in the present time. The author’s study on long- drawn- out societal conflicts was done in the new postcolonial age, where the emerging landscapes did not represent contemporary US economic, political or social reality.
Azar’s human needs evaluation superbly complements scholarly works which attempt at destabilizing the American assumption of established legal equality. This privilege has been assumed by several individuals to be established in the course of the US civil rights age’s legal reforms – an age characterized by a move from extensive public approval of legal isolation and an aim to acknowledge the damage inflicted by institutionalized White dominance (Dilts, 2012, 191-194).
The aforementioned transition in the public’s view of “equality” served to displace segregation as the established and approved moral good within power groups. Ever since, political and legal circles have engaged in a continuous discussion on the question of what equality is and how to achieve it. Several decades of apparent successes in the area of public policy has led the US Supreme Court to lend itself a popular civil rights success public narrative, buttressed by a large number of avenues cultures utilize for writing public history (such as monuments, holidays, textbooks, and so forth).
CLS and CRT experts (Coates, 2015; Crenshaw, 1988; and Freeman, 1978) report that the above civil rights success narrative established taking into account actual, race- based social and economic gaps fails. The simple aim of effective re- entry in society following a stint in prison may be inconsistent with the undue restitution payment or the failure to land a job on account of their criminal history (Chermak et.al 2010, 1019-1041).
Prevalent public narratives on victimhood, offending and proper societal reactions frame current public policy development in such a way that reducing incarceration has become exceedingly challenging. Hardy’s narrative framework is not just applicable to individual instances; rather, it is relevant to mass imprisonment culture itself. The above narrative shift (from rehabilitationist to disciplinary) half- way through the previous century is demonstrative of how public perceptions influence policy development. Dodge and Ospina (2005) quoting Neisser and Schramm as follows: “‘[w]hat are public policies but stories narrating our relations...in politically selective ways?” They further claim that the public’s understanding of social issues is via story that is successively reflected within public policy formulation. According to Pettinico (1994), this shift in public narrative has been guided by the media and electoral cycles. The author explains that the widespread media coverage of criminal activities, particularly the most gruesome of cases, served to intensify public outrage and panic over the subject to an almost- frenzy.
In conjunction with the increased fear of violent activity that arose during the latter part of the twentieth century was a corollary obsession with the idea of victimization, which had major legal ramifications. The zest to reflect crime victims’ position was so powerful among legal circles that, in the year 1991, the US Supreme Court repealed its ruling in 1987 limiting VIS (Victim’s Impact Statement) presence during sentencing.
In the Booth v. Maryland (1987) case, the US Supreme Court held that VISs would probably disproportionately influence sentencing on the basis of the victim’s reputation and character, and impacts on the victim’s family, perceiving the victim to be a ‘sterling’ societal member and not one of dubious character. Thus, the case reinforced the tempting tendency, within trial, to insist that the victim was a “perfect” person and the accused was a downright scoundrel (Chermak et.al 2010, 1019-1041).
Following the establishment of guilt, the court’s aim was focusing on the accused parties, considering their individual contexts prior to sentencing them. The Booth v. Maryland case partly acknowledged that immense bias perhaps occurred if one took into account victims’ and their families’ emotionally-charged speeches (however, this decision also conceded that having a VIS may be equivalent to the victim’s “mini- trial”, disadvantaging those perceived by jury members in an unfavorable light). The Payne v. Tennessee case (1991) explicitly reconsidered the Booth v. Maryland verdict and a similar South Carolina v. Gathers ruling (Chermak et.al 2010, 1019-1041).
To sum up, the issue of crime justice reforms in an era of mass imprisonment is basically unites the following two key issues: the basic assumptions of judicial criminal/victim dichotomy and the dormant and long- drawn- out societal conflict that surrounds race relations following the Jim Crow and slavery age. Such deep- seated narratives which link race with violence, together with the increased oversimplification that crime in the nation is mostly of a violent nature, drives public unrest pertaining to personal safety. However, ironically, the feeling of comfort has been associated with high imprisonment rates. If natural innate feelings pertaining to criminality hold true, the US society has less cause for worrying about high imprisonment rates and police shootings. Indeed, high detention and imprisonment rates may authenticate the perceived necessity for such systems. A close scrutiny of such inherent feelings pertaining to criminality merit little faith, being the outcome of highly obsolete and rigid narratives.

In my opinion, policy- makers at all levels should critically consider the history and impetus underlying the most widespread crime narratives of the nation. Persistent offender/ victim dichotomization and the innate racial segregation is a huge barrier impeding criminal justice reforms. The US prison and criminal justice systems, as well as citizens’ ideas pertaining to victimhood and criminality are, factually and figuratively, held captive; this is a sound argument in favor of the re- examination of narratives structuring these systems prior to reviewing policy. I don’t mean to suggest that people aren’t to blame for their choices or the consequences of their decisions on other people, or that the crime justice system ought not to hold them culpable. Instead, I simply suggest that such actions take place in a complex context and the crime justice system has, time and again, proven its incapacity to respond effectively. Public sector narrative construction forms part of this framework and I believe such narratives prevent the government from adequately dealing with its imprisonment techniques and rates, the nation’s prison system, what is defined as “criminal” or not, the treatment of accused entities upon release, and the humane conception of victimhood’s nuances (Chermak et.al 2010, 1019-1041).


References
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.
Allen, G. (1995, July 16). VA is ‘taking punishment seriously’: Throwing away the key. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-07-16/news/1995197044_1_sentences-violent-crimes-time-for-murder
Allen, G. [George]. (2015, June 25). Statement on Governor McAuliffe's executive order to study parole. [Facebook Note]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/george-allen/statement-on-governor-mcauliffes-executive-order-to-study-parole/10153414528249127
Azar, E. E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflicts: Theory and cases. Hampshire: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Azar, E. E., Jureidini, P., and McLaurin, R. (1978). Protracted social conflict; Theory and practice in the Middle East. Journal of Palestine Studies, 8(1), 41-60.
B. (2015, May 13). Willie Horton revisited. Retrieved from The Marshall Project website: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/05/13/willie-hortonrevisited The Sentencing Project. (2014) Race and punishment: Racial perceptions of crime and support for punitive policies. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Race-and-Punishment.pdf
Bonacich, Edna (1972). A Theory of ethnic antagonism: The split labor market. American Sociological Review, 37(5), 547-559.
Booth v. Maryland. 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
Bouie, J. (2013, July 17). “Why ‘black-on-black crime’ is such a dangerous idea.” The American prospect. Retrieved from: http://prospect.org/article/why-black-black-crime-dangerous-idea
Campbell, M.C., Vogel, M., Williams, J. (2015, May). Historical contingencies and the evolving importance of race, violent crime, and region in explaining mass incarceration in the United States. Criminology 53(2), 180-203.
Chermak, S. M., Freilich, J. D., Simone, J. (2010). Surveying American state police agencies about lone wolves, far-right criminality, and far-right and Islamic Jihadist criminal collaboration. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 33.11, 1019-1041.
Christie, Nils. (1977, January). Conflicts as property. The British Journal of Criminology 17(1). Retrieved from:
Coates, T. (2015, October). The black family in the age of mass incarceration. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-black-family-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/403246/
Code of Virginia. (1995, 2010). Establishment of a victim-offender reconciliation program. (§19.2-11.4). Retrieved from: http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter1.1/section19.2-11.4/
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Corrections. (2016) Victims Services Unit. [Presentation Slides, Oct. 26]. Retrieved from: https://parolecommission.virginia.gov/resources/october-26/vadoc-victims-services.pdf
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Criminal Justice Services. (2012, February). Virginia crime trends 2001-2010. Retrieved from: https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/documents/12%20Crime-inVA-2012.pdf
Commonwealth of Virginia, Governor’s Commission on Parole. (2015a). Final Report and Recommendations. Governor’s Commission on Parole Review. Retrived from: https://parolecommission.virginia.gov/resources/final-report/2015-12-04-parole-commission-final-report.pdf
Commonwealth of Virginia. (2015b). “Past Meeting Minutes.” Commission on Parole Review. Retrieved from Commission website: http://parolecommission.virginia.gov/
Coser, L. (1956). The Functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331-1387.
Crime & Delinquency, 61(5), 719-741. Robinson, D. (2015, September). Reentry system. [Presentation Slides.]