Systematic Failures in Justice, Equality, and Opportunity in the United States
Kyle Brewster
The preamble of the Constitution
states that the purpose of the United States government is to “…establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity…” When observing the data, the purpose of ensuring these provisions
for all people in the country does not seem to be universally upheld. In
reality, not all are given equitable opportunities to succeed in the US,
whether that be by treatment by the justice system, because of the color of
their skin, or the socioeconomic status into which they were born.
One aspect of the criminal justice
system that hinders the ability to truly provide liberty and justice for all is
with regards to the prison system. The Census of State and Federal Adult
Correctional Facilities conducts a survey every five to seven years that
provides detailed information on the types of inmates housed, facility age and
type, staff characteristics, and more[1].
According to data collected in 2010, the total amount of persons under
supervision of adult correctional authorities was at 7.1 million by the end of
the year[2].
While such a large population
relative to populations of other OECD countries in collected data is a
contributing factors to a large prison population, the US also has highest the
highest per capita rate of incarceration at a rate of 655 people incarcerated
per 100,000 of the total population. The next two leading countries in per
capita incarceration are Turkey and Israel with 318 and 234 incarcerated out of
100,000, respectively[3].
China has a total incarcerated population of 1.6 million (and a per capital
rate of 118 out of 100,000), varying slightly by source[4].
The current incarceration rate is
about 240 percent higher than it was in 1980[5].
Such a high rate results in the US housing more than half of the global prison
population. Many factors are believed the attribute to this disproportionality
high number for the US. For example, changes in policy regarding drug use,
rehabilitation, and drug trafficking, low-level crime punishments, minimum
sentencing policy, reliance on plea bargaining, and societal views on the
purposes of the justice system. Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark,
Norway, or Sweden place a high preference on rehabilitation (rather than
punishment) and thus invest higher into these sorts of programs and have rates
of incarceration that are reflective of such rehabilitative investments[6].
There are many different forms of
rehabilitative practices that prove successful (in terms of sending less
crime-offenders to prisons and reducing rates of recidivism). These approaches
can vary from conventional to less conventional. One such example would be with
the use of electronic monitoring. A pilot program was initiated in Philadelphia
in 2008 by the Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison. In this program, offenders would
wear ankle bracelets embedded with two-way speakers that would allow
communication with guards. If the person wearing the ankle bracelet was to
wonder into an area that they were not supposed to be, the guard would warn
them to cease their actions, risking their return to jail[7].
This type of program (or other
similar programs) would allow non-violent inmates who are serving time for
misdemeanors or “light” or certain non-violent felons to help alleviate the
overcrowding of prisons and jails. At the time of this pilot program was
conducted in 2008, one-fifth of the 9,300 inmates in city jails were there for violent
offenses. Using GPS motoring in this method would cost around $9 to $18 dollars
a day, compared to the $91 per day cost of housing an inmate in a physical
institution[8].
In the US from the period between 1880
through 1930 and from 1930 to 1980, incarcerations rates remained relatively
constant around 100 and 200 out of 100,000 of the total population,
respectively[9]. In
addition to the costs to society that is incurred with massive rates of
incarceration, current methods are frequently ineffective, both in financial
and objective terms. The average cost of housing one inmate in a federal prison
for a year is $34,704.12
If there were to be a reduction in
half the rate of non-violent offenders, rates would return to the levels of
1993 and lower correctional expenditures by $16.9 billion. Most of those
savings would be passed to state and local governments and amount to one-fourth
of their annual corrections budget. These savings are high because non-violent
offenders compose over 60 percent of the jail and prison population.
Non-violent drug offenders make up one-fourth of all those incarcerated, which
is 15 percent higher than 1980[11].
While numbers regarding overall incarceration
rates have dramatically increased over the past several decades, they are not
correlated with increases in crime. While total violent crimes committed did
increase from 1980 to 1992 by 44 percent, incarceration rates increased in that
same time period by over 150 percent according to data collected by the FBI and
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Property crimes also increased by 7 percent
during the same period, but fell following 1992. Rather than rising rates of
crimes, stricter sentencing policies and less use of probation and parole are
what has led to these significant increases[12].
If incarcerations rates were to
have matches violent crime rates, then rates would have reached its high in
1992 at 317 out of 100,000 of the population and 227 out of 100,000 by 2008
(which is one-third of actual 2008 levels). Higher incarcerations are proven to
have an effect on crime rates. The impact, however, is negligible. In research
conducted by Don Stemen of the Vera Institute of Justice, a 10 percent increase
in levels of incarceration is correlated with a 2 to 4 percent reduction in
crime[13].
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
was one example of legislation passed during the 1980s that some attribute to
the increase in incarceration rates, including aspects such as the elimination
of parole for federal offenders and changed certain implementations of
probation[14].
The overarching goal of this legislation was to achieve greater fairness in
sentencing, equality, transparency, and consistency. The political climate that
followed in the mid-1980s under the Reagan administration continued policy
changed on crime with the aim of achieving implementing greater levels of
rigidity and severity. Probation was nearly all-together eliminated as a stand-alone
method of punishment for crime offenders[15].
Following the implementation of the federal guidelines (that were exacerbate by
policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws), the federal prison
population grew significantly and at a rate that outpaced the growth of state
and local prisons population[16].
The rate of incarceration in the US
is not the only indicator of systemic failures. Consider the justice system
with regards to Native Americans. According to the National Crime Information
Center, in 2016 there were 5,712 reported cases of missing and murdered
indigenous women and girls. Of those reported cases, only 116 cases were
recorded in the federal missing person database of US Department of Justice,
NamUs. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that murder is the
third-leading cause of death among American Indian and Alaska Native women.
Rates of violence on Indian reservations is 10 times higher than the national
average[17].
Compared to national average, the top three leading causes of death are heart disease,
cancer, and strokes (none of the top-ten leading causes of death amongst women
or the national average according to the CDC include violent crimes afflicted
on others[18].
The statistics in this report do
not represent the full gravity of nationally unrecorded
missing-persons-related-crimes for several reasons: unreported cases, the data
was only collected from 71 urban cities, and that data collection does not
include information from the 29 percent of American Indian and Alaskan Native
women that do not live in urban areas[19].
Another example of a systemic
injustice in the US justice system is with regards to law enforcement. One
issue that has raised issues in current events is with the issue of taxation by
citation. In its essence, this concept is exemplified by local governments and
law enforcement agencies that use their position of power to enforce policies
(such as traffic laws or other municipal ordinances) as a method of generating
revenue, rather than solely to protect public interests[20].
In the case study conducts by
Carpenter, Sweetland, and McDonald, this phenomenon was analyzed with
observations of three Georgian cities – Morrow, Riverdale, and Clarkston. Over
a five-year period, these cities on average collected between 14 percent to 25
percent of their revenues from fines and fees. Other cities of similar size in
the state generated just around 3 percent of their revenue from these sources.
Many of the issues that warranted the fines and citations were causing little
or no threat to public health, including property code violations that were
primarily regarding aesthetics[21].
In addition, the local courts often
worked cooperatively with the law enforcement agencies. Nearly all of those who
were processed by the court either took a plea bargain or plead guilty and
faced punitive measures of some sort. The agencies are allowed to act in such
manners because there exist little to no policy previous that prevent them from
using their powers of enforcement for reasons other than public protection[22].
The issue of using law enforcement
to generate revenue is not unique to the Georgia criminal justice system. The
same problem was found in the Ferguson, Missouri police department that incited
criticism following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. While people continue
to debate whether that the perpetrating officer’s actions were warranted, there
still underlay the systemic issues.
These issues were formally exposed
following an investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into the policing
tactics used by the Ferguson Police Department. As with the aforementioned case
studies from Georgia, the DOJ found that the policing tactics used in Ferguson
focused on revenue rather than public safety. Their practices raised concerns
regarding due process, and was shown to have patterns of unconstitutional
policing which in turn shaped the behavior of municipal courts[23].
The unconstitutional practices were
also conducted with racial bias, overwhelmingly affecting African Americans.
From 2012 to 2014, the data showed that African Americans accounted for 90
percent of citations, 93 percent of arrests made by police officers, and 85
percent of vehicle stops (despite being only 67 percent of the city’s
population). Even after controlling for race-based variables, African Americans
were twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops,
despite actually being found of contraband 26 percent less often than white
drivers[24].
Another systemic failure
of the quality of opportunity in the US is with regards to education. The
Federal Reserve of St. Louis recognizes a strong correlation between income and
education. Because of its strong connection, education is frequently referred
to as an investment of human capital. People invest in education for many of
the same reasons that people invest into assets or financially, namely, to make
a return. The additional income earned that is associated with higher education
is often referred to as the “college wage premium”. In general, the more skills
that people have (such as formal knowledge taught and implied skills acquired
that are represented with a college diploma), the more employable they are[25].
This correlation can be quantified
by observing differences in median income based on levels of education. In a
study conducted by the Federal Reserve in 2015, people in the data set were
broken into groups categorized by level of education: no high school diploma
(being the lowest), high school diploma (or GED equivalent), two- or four-year
degree, and an advanced degree (being the highest). The median incomes from these groups
ranged from the lowest measurement of $22,320 (for those without a high school
diploma) to $116,265 (for those with an advanced degree[26].
The measurement of median wealth from
the lowest to the highest levels of education ranged from $37,766 to $689,100.
The wealth-to-income ratio for these respective demographics was 1.43 and 5.58[27].
There was distinction between the measurement of income and wealth because the
range was significantly higher for wealth. Income is commonly defined as the
money that flows to factors of production, such as profits going to business or
interest paid on financial investments. In this case, it represents the
wages/salaries paid to people by their jobs. Wealth, on the other hand, is a
more broadly defined concept. In an accounting sense, it is the difference
between assets and liabilities – that is, the difference between the things
that you own of value (cars, houses, retirements funds, property, and etcetera),
and the financial obligations, burdens and responsibilities of which you are
responsible for in the short- and long-term (such as debts, interest paid on
debts, notes payable, and etcetera)[28].
There are long term implications that
result from lower levels of income in addition to the immediate adverse
effects. One such effect is with savings. Having a higher regular source of
income make the accumulation of savings and thus wealth significantly easier.
In addition to not having ample discretionary income, those with less income
are also less financially literate. In fact, studies have shown that up to 50
percent of wealth inequality is attributed to differences in financial
literacy. As a result, those with less education are more likely to succumb to
paying for higher mortgages, higher interests rates for borrowed money (such as
payday loan). When you factor in the compounding of interest, the amount of
debt exacerbated (while savings would increase exponentially)[29].
The actual rates of savings by groups
of income level (which is also associated with educational attainment) is
reflective of differences in financial literacy. In the US overall, the rate of
savings has decreased significantly over the past 40 years. The decrease is
especially noticeable when compared to other industrialized nations. Personal
savings rates in the US in 2016 were 5.7 percent, while personal savings rates
in Germany, for example, were 16.7 percent[30]. Households
that have higher levels of income and growth save more than households with predictably
low levels of income growth[31].Thus,
savings is imperative to ensure the ability of having not only a decent
standard of living/life quality during retirement, but also to build wealth and
spur upward social mobility[32] –
such as trend is not nearly as pervasive in lower-income communities.
Only 20 states in the US mandate
students in high school to incorporate economics into the curriculum, and only
17 states require courses in personal finance. Students who do live in states
with financial education requirements have higher credit scores and lower rates
of loan delinquency compared to those in states without such mandates[33].
According
to the National Bureau of Economic Research, income inequality leads to lower
rates of upward social mobility. One such way results from differences in these
human capital investments (i.e. education). While the correlation cannot be
proven to be casual (although there is a strong positive correlation between
the factors), their studies suggest that income inequality generates
perceptions amongst lower-income youth with regards to the importance of the
return on their human capital investments – namely, that it is not important.
The data is consistent with this claim, especially when considering that
lower-income youth have higher rates of dropping out of high school in places
with greater income inequality[34].
Data
further suggests that there is a connection between crime and unemployment. In
November of 2016, the unemployment rate in the US was 4.6 percent. The rate of
unemployment for college graduates was only 2.3 percent while the rate for
those with less than a high school diploma was 7.9 percent[35].
According to statistics collected from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is a positive correlation not only with
unemployment and crime (in the study, violent crime and property crime were
analyzed), but also with GDP per capita and high school graduation rates[36].
According to date gathered from the
US Census Bureau, the highest-spending school districts in the US spend 10
times as much on education compared to the lowest-spending districts. This
trend affects in particular minority demographics. School districts that host
the largest concentrations of colored students received on average $1,800 from
state and local funding compared to districts with the less colored-student
populations – the discrepancies are even larger within particular areas of a
given state[37].
The differences in the investments
and subsequent quality of education can be attributed to the ways by which
public education is funded. One of the reasons for variations in funding in
public schools depending on state and municipality is because of revenue from
property taxes to fund educational intuitions. The average amount of revenue
from public schools in the US is 36 percent. Some states rely on property taxes
as a source of education revenue higher (such as Illinois at 60 percent) and
some states rely less (the one school district in Hawaii has no reliance on
property taxes. Between the 2014–15 and 2015–16 school years, local revenues
for public school nationwide increased by $11 billion, $9.9 billion of which
was from revenues from local property taxes[38].
While there may not be explicit
legislation that prevents people from advancing in society, nor are there laws
that directly inhibit the societal advancement of one demographic group over
another. Even though such laws don’t exist, people are often born into
situation that mold them in manners that will affect them for the rest of their
lives, whether that be with the opportunity from their socioeconomic status,
the way they are treated and higher likelihood of an adverse interaction with
law enforcement, excessive mistreatment by the justice system, or being an
underrepresented demographic on the national level. Until these issues are
resolved, justice will not truly be provided for all.
Works Cited
n.d.
98th Congress. "H.R.5773 - Sentencing Reform Act
of 1984." 1984.
Ajimotokin, Sandra, Alexandra Haskins, and Zach Wade.
"The Effects of Unemployment on Crime Rates in the U.S." Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2015, 1-18.
Carroll, Christopher D., and David N. Weil.
"Saving and Growth: A Reinterpretation." Carnegie-Rochester
Conference Series on Public Policy , 1994, 133-192.
Department of Justice. "Investigation of the
Ferguson Police Department." US Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division, 2015, 1-105.
Dick M. Carpenter II, Ph.D., Kyle Sweetland, and
Jennifer McDonald. "The Price of Taxation by Citation." Case Study,
The Institute for Justice, 2019, 1-60.
Duffer, Erin. State government revenue and
expenditure in California from fiscal year 2000 to 2019 (in billion U.S.
dollars). April 29, 2019.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/313176/california-state-government-revenue-and-expenditure/.
Duffin, Erin. Incarceration rates in OECD
countries as of 2019. Statistica, May 20, 2019.
Engdhal, Sylvia. Prisons. Farmington Hills,
MI: Cengage Learning, 2010.
Federal Register. Annual Determination of Average
Cost of Incarceration. April 30, 2018.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09062/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration.
Glaze, Lauren. Correctional Populations in the
United States, 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of
Justice, 2011, 1-10.
Health Resources and Services Administration. Leading
Causes of Death. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2010.
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/hstat/hi/pages/208lcd.html.
Kearney, Melissa S., and Phillip B. Levine.
"Income Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop Out of High
School." Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Reseach, 2016.
Lucchesi, Annita, and Abigail Echo-Hawk. Missing
and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls. Seattle: Urban Indian Health
Institute, 2018, 1-32.
Maruschak, Laura, and Tracy Snell. Data
Collection: Census Of State And Federal Adult Correctional Facilities
(CSFACF). 2012. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=255.
National Center for Education Statistics. Public
School Revenue Sources. May 2019.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp.
Raikes, Jeff, and Linda Darling-Hammond. Why Our
Education Funding Systems Are Derailing the American Dream. The Learning
Policy Institue. Feburary 18, 2019.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-our-education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream.
Schmitt, John, Kris Warner, and Sarika Gupta.
"The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration." Center for Economic
& Policy Research, 2010.
Tonry, Michael. Federal Sentencing 'Reform' Since
1984: The Awful as Enemy of the Good. School of Law, Minnesota: University
of Minnesota, 2015, 52.
Wolla, Scott A., and Jessica Sullivan. Education,
Income, and Wealth. Federal Reserve of St. Louis. January 2017.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017/01/03/education-income-and-wealth/.
World Prison Brief. World Prison Brief Data.
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. 2014. https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/china.
[1] Maruschak,
Laura, and Tracy Snell. Data Collection: Census of State and Federal Adult
Correctional Facilities (CSFACF). 2012.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=255.
[2] Glaze,
Lauren. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2010. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, US Department of Justice. 2011. 1-10.
[3] Duffin,
Erin. Incarceration rates in OECD countries as of 2019. Statistica. May 20, 2019.
[4] World
Prison Brief. World Prison Brief Data. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy
Research. 2014. https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/china.
[5] Schmitt,
John, Kris Warner, and Sarika Gupta. "The High Budgetary Cost of
Incarceration." Center for Economic & Policy Research, 2010.
[6] Duffin,
Erin. Incarceration rates in OECD countries as of 2019. Statistica. May 20 2019.
[7] Engdhal,
Sylvia. Prisons. Farmington Hills. MI. Cengage Learning. 2010.
[8]
Engdhal. Prisons. 2010.
[9] Schmitt,
Warner, Gupta. “The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration”. 2010.
[10]
Schmitt, Warner, Gupta. “The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration”. 2010
[11] Schmitt,
Warner, Gupta. “The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration”. 2010
[12] Schmitt,
Warner, Gupta. “The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration”. 2010
[13]
Schmitt, Warner, Gupta. “The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration”. 2010
[14] 98th
Congress. "H.R.5773 - Sentencing Reform Act of 1984." 1984.
[15] Tonry,
Michael. Federal Sentencing 'Reform' Since 1984: The Awful as Enemy of the
Good. School of Law. Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 2015. 52.
[16]
Tonry. Federal Sentencing 'Reform' Since 1984”. 2015.
[17] Lucchesi,
Annita, and Abigail Echo-Hawk. Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women &
Girls. Seattle: Urban Indian Health Institute, 2018, 1-32.
[18] Health
Resources and Services Administration. Leading Causes of Death. US Department
of Health and Human Services. 2010.
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/hstat/hi/pages/208lcd.html.
[19]
Lucchesi, Echo-Hawk. Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls. 2018.
[20] Dick
M. Carpenter II, Ph.D., Kyle Sweetland, and Jennifer McDonald. "The Price
of Taxation by Citation." Case Study, The Institute for Justice, 2019,
1-60.
[21]
Carpenter, Sweetland, Mcdonald. “The Price of Taxation by Citation”. 2019.
[22]
Carpenter, Sweetland, Mcdonald. “The Price of Taxation by Citation”. 2019.
[23] Department
of Justice. "Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department." US
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. 2015. 1-105.
[24]
DOJ. "Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department”. 2015.
[25] Wolla,
Scott A., and Jessica Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. Federal Reserve
of St. Louis. January 2017.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017/01/03/education-income-and-wealth/
[26]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017.
[27]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017.
[28]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017.
[29]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017.
[30]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017.
[31] Carroll,
Christopher D., and David N. Weil. "Saving and Growth: A
Reinterpretation." Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy.
1994. 133-192.
[32] Wolla,
Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017
[33]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017
[34] Kearney,
Melissa S., and Phillip B. Levine. "Income Inequality, Social Mobility,
and the Decision to Drop Out of High School." Working Paper. National
Bureau of Economic Research. 2016.
[35]
Wolla, Sullivan. Education, Income, and Wealth. 2017
[36] Ajimotokin,
Sandra, Alexandra Haskins, and Zach Wade. "The Effects of Unemployment on
Crime Rates in the U.S." Georgia Institute of Technology. 2015. 1-18.
[37] Raikes,
Jeff, and Linda Darling-Hammond. Why Our Education Funding Systems Are
Derailing the American Dream. The Learning Policy Institute. February 18, 2019.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-our-education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream.
[38] National
Center for Education Statistics. Public School Revenue Sources. May 2019.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp.