Mass Incarceration in Arizona: Trends, Race, and For-Profit Prisons

Introduction

Mass incarceration is one of the more profound injustices of our time. Arizona is one of the states in America that currently struggles with this crisis, as its penal system has spiraled out of control, becoming a driver of injustice rather than a meaningful component of a fair justice system. This paper examines how the penal system has changed—in Arizona and in America as a whole—and discusses how Arizona has adopted the corrupt model of for-profit prisons, something that does a tremendous disservice to all citizens of the nation. It also examines race relations in Arizona from a historical perspective, ultimately demonstrating that mass incarceration impacts Black and Latino men far more than white men, and that it represents a revived form of segregation. This paper argues for an undeniable connection between the big business of mass incarceration in Arizona and the state's racist past.

For-Profit Prisons

The prison system used to be simply a melancholy aspect of the greater justice system—a potential consequence of breaking the law (Gottschalk, 2006). Today in Arizona and elsewhere in the United States, it is big business. Consider the following: "Largely a product of the era of mass incarceration, jails today churn an incredible 11 million people per year through their doors. Americans now spend more than $20 billion annually on jails, a sum that has grown fourfold since 1983. Yet on any given day, more than 60 percent of people sitting in jail are awaiting trial and presumed innocent. This 'pretrial' population drove 99 percent of jail growth from 2000 to 2015" (Rizer & Haggerty, 2017). Based on these figures, one can infer that some form of corruption or societal imbalance is motivating this trend. Jails were originally created as a tool for curbing crime. One would think, following this logic, that if jails were effective at reducing crime, there would be fewer criminals. However, "recent studies show that even short stays in jail can spur a significant increase in a person's likelihood to reoffend, while longer detentions correlate with even greater odds of recidivism" (Rizer & Haggerty, 2017). Part of this is connected to how flawed and unjust the system is: the bulk of people currently in jail in Arizona have not even been convicted of a crime.

While rates of crime in Arizona are exceedingly high, the rate of reoffending is up 65 percent or higher—a significant red flag indicating that the proliferation of prisons is not helping recidivism rates, which represents one of the most serious obstacles facing the justice system. For example, Pima County is a place where 80 percent of those in jail have not even been convicted of a crime. This puts young people at risk of becoming substance abusers while incarcerated, of being abused, of suffering psychological damage, and of a host of other dangers (Rizer & Haggerty, 2017). In response, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales created the Task Force on Fair Justice for All (Rizer & Haggerty, 2017). One notable achievement of this task force was shining a light on how the growth of the pretrial population has been driven by the cash bail system; the task force ultimately recommended that "pre-trial detention should be avoided to the furthest extent possible" (Rizer & Haggerty, 2017).

One of the major issues with the proliferation of prisons in Arizona is that it reeks of injustice. Every person in America has the inherent right, regardless of social class, race, or ethnicity, to expect an unbiased justice system, as guaranteed by the Constitution. As a result, "We do not employ a private police force that is paid based on the number of arrests they make. We do not employ private prosecutors who are paid based on the number of convictions obtained. We do not pay judges based on the amount of fines they collect" (Dacey, 2017). This is because incentivizing such actions would clearly disrupt justice by channeling greed into the system. Rather than administering justice, officials would be inclined to arrest and jail people for personal financial gain. This would make vulnerable populations—such as racial minorities—the most likely targets of such a corrupted system (Dacey, 2017). All persons in America are supposed to be guaranteed liberty; a justice system that incentivized officials in such a way would be wholly disconnected from integrity.

In Arizona, a certain level of this type of corruption is already present because the private prison business is booming—and it benefits no one but corporations. Throughout America, opponents of the private prison system have pushed back against government plans to add thousands of new prison beds around the nation, facilities that can cost around $50 million each to construct. The private prison system creates a tremendous burden for taxpayers—money that informed citizens know would be better spent funding schools or rehabilitating the homeless. Yet an entrenched segment of government supports incarceration-for-profit, and this corruption of government needs to be addressed urgently. In 1980, America had just half a million people in prisons; today that number is 2.3 million. "The U.S. today has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's prisoners. We put as many people in prison as China and Russia combined" (Dacey, 2017). This corruption began to seep into the U.S. system around 1980, when federal and local governments began shifting some of their duties in running prisons to private, profit-motivated corporations. "CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA) and GEO Group control most of this 'market,' or the human inventory in profit-producing prison cells. The private prison industry is now the fourth-largest prison system in the United States, and CCA alone is the fifth largest" (Dacey, 2017). The corruption that forms the foundation of this system is staggering and, many argue, unconstitutional.

Manipulating the Legal System

Prisons once served the straightforward purposes of crime and punishment and protecting society from dangerous criminals. Within the private prison system, however, officials are financially motivated to lock people up and keep them locked up. Private prisons receive government payments for each day a cell remains occupied, much like a motel charges per night. Consequently, these private corporations understand that the more cells that are filled, the greater the profits for shareholders. To sustain and expand this arrangement, major corporations hire powerful lobbyists to sponsor legislation and influence lawmakers to pass laws more conducive to incarcerating people and keeping them incarcerated longer. "For-profit prison corporations spend generously on political campaigns to make sure that more of the prisoner inventory is directed to them, and so they can command 20-year government contracts with 90 percent occupancy guarantees—such as with the Arizona Department of Corrections—where the taxpayer holds the bag even when the crime rate goes down" (Dacey, 2017). Even more disturbing is that for-profit prisons, motivated by money, are not inclined to release prisoners. Researchers have found that for-profit prison staff will tend to generate bogus incident and disciplinary reports that negatively impact parole dates (Dacey, 2017). Prisons are often seemingly lawless places that cause tremendous trauma to the individual. Inside, people may learn to abuse drugs, commit crimes, and engage in violence while suffering enormous psychological harm. Within the for-profit system, high rates of recidivism abound—a sign of the system's inherent failure, though to those who profit from it, returning prisoners may function as "repeat customers."

Disrupting the for-profit prison system is essential if justice is to prevail. Another avenue for reform is pushing for drug sentencing change. Mass incarceration has been significantly enabled by the opioid crisis in America. With the opioid crisis affecting people of all races and social classes, policymakers have a duty to treat addiction as a disease rather than a moral failing deserving punishment. Yet Arizona's approach has remained retrograde and largely ineffective. The state's "tough on crime" stance means that drug-related activities are the second most common reason for arrest and the primary basis for most charges filed (Fealk, 2017). Despite this, the state ensures that few if any of those arrested receive treatment for addiction—all but guaranteeing high rates of recidivism.

Another troubling sign of corruption in Arizona is that "the state does not collect any aggregate data on how criminal sentencing laws are actually being applied. There was no way to know how many people were arrested or sentenced under a given criminal law, what sentence they received, or how much it cost" (Fealk, 2017). This reveals a disturbing lawlessness within the system, where officials can incarcerate people at their own discretion without even maintaining proper records of their actions.

A task force organized by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) sought to illuminate this corruption. Law students gathered data from courthouses in several counties in order to compile information about drug cases and drug sentencing. Among the most significant findings was that Arizona's criminal justice system is not merely corrupt—it is also racist. "African Americans are more likely to go to prison for a drug offense (even possession) and receive sentences that are 24 percent longer than white people convicted of drug crimes" (Fealk, 2017). Furthermore, the data showed that the justice system overwhelmingly arrests people for softer drug charges such as possession or use, with very few charges for harder offenses like sale or trafficking. Taken together, the numbers demonstrated that Arizona spends approximately half a million dollars per day incarcerating people for minor drug offenses. Rather than attempting to understand the problem—its causes, the factors that sustain it, and how to support people struggling with addiction—the system exploits those who bear these vulnerabilities, punishing and removing them from society (Gottschalk, 2006).

References

Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

Dacey, J. R. (2017, January 8). Viewpoints: Private prisons are costly — and unconstitutional. Retrieved from https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2017/01/08/private-prisons-arizona-dacey/96120404/

Fealk, R. (2018, February 9). Arizona: A case study in why we need drug sentencing reform. Retrieved from https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/arizona-case-study-why-we-need-drug-sentencing-reform

Gottsfield, R. L. (2017, August). Fixing Arizona's mass incarceration dilemma. Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/products/fixing-arizona%E2%80%99s-mass-incarceration-dilemma

Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge University Press.

Rizer, A., & Haggerty, J. (2017, September 14). Our turn: Want less crime? Put fewer people in jail. Retrieved from https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2017/09/14/jail-reform-focus-pretrial-detention-crime/493424001/

Wacquant, L. (2002). From slavery to mass incarceration. New Left Review, 13.

Whitaker, M. C. (1997). In search of Black Phoenicians: African American culture and community in Phoenix, Arizona, 1868–1940.