The United States has had the largest mass incarceration rate in the world since 2002. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of 2010, “the U.S. [incarceration] rate was 500 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or about 2.3 million prisoners” (Scommegna). Mass incarceration especially has a detrimental effect on minority communities. Princeton Law School graduate and assistant U.S. attorney states in his peer-reviewed academic journal that, “while 1 in every 17 white males can expect to go to prison in their lifetime, that likelihood increases to 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in every 3 African American males” (Capers). Aside from possible racial discrimination, many factors must be explored when determining the impact mass incarceration has on crime rate reduction, such as the economy. The economic lens must be analyzed in order to determine if mass incarceration is an effective method of lowering crime occurrence, as aspects such as privatized prisons and prisoner labor play an integral role in incarceration. Moreover, following release, many ex-convicts struggle to secure employment, which increases their chances of committing another crime. Thus, the core economic influence on the continuity of mass incarceration within mainly minority dense areas, is the inclination towards crime one develops from financial stress.
Business Owner Perspective
An aspect that often hinders an ex-con’s chances of employment is employer bias. In a Holzer and colleague study, “20 percent of interviewed business owners reported they would definitely not hire ex-cons” (Flake). This denial of employment, disregards attributes of possible employees, and frequently prevents businesses from hiring ideal candidates. Another common element that decreases likelihood of ex-con employment, is employer assumptions. In essence, as “high recidivism rates make employing individuals with a criminal background high risk” (Zeidner), many possible employers fear an increase in workplace crime rate, and become hesitant when employing ex-offenders. Moreover, as “hiring people with criminal convictions… [also] increases exposure to [a] negligent hiring claim” (Zeidner), businesses’ apprehension of employing ex-cons increase as, should a problem arise, the business would be held accountable. Finally, even if employers wish to hire people with criminal records, employment requirements often put employers at odds with laws and licensing rules. Essentially, “some crimes under federal and state laws are automatic disqualifiers for some jobs” (Zeidner), and prevent ex-cons from occupations that deal with children, women, and the elderly.
Ex-con Perspective
Employment regulations play a large role in the ability for felons to find jobs as, “unlike minorities, elderly or disabled, [criminals], have limited legal options to challenge a denial or termination of a job” (Zeidner). This means that even if prejudice could be determined as the reason for employment refusal, a convict has no legal ground to refute the decision. Furthermore, even if ex-cons are able to attain and maintain a job, criminals face obstacles that discourage them from pursuing employment. Two of these deterrents include legal protection and salary. As there are no federal civil rights laws protecting labor treatment of persons with a criminal past, ex-felons are often subject to mistreatment. Moreover, as having a criminal background greatly affects one’s reliability, ex-cons who take cases to court are very unlikely to persuade jurors to their side. Finally, salary disincentivizes ex-cons from employment as, professor of sociology, Dallas F. Flake said in his peer-reviewed Journal of Law, “incarceration also decreases hourly wages by fifteen percent” (Flake). Consequently, following release, an ex-con, on average, will make 30% to 40% less per year (Flake).
Community Perspective
Unemployment of ex-cons and recidivism have an influence on surrounding communities. The inability for convicted felons to sustain consistent employment encourages them to commit more crimes, as they still require life essentials. Within the Holzer and colleagues study, it was also concluded that “at least ¾ of ex-cons had spent 8 months searching for a job following their release” (Flake). At the same time, “65% had found work since release, but only 45% had jobs at the time of the interview” (Flake). The unemployment of ex-cons leads to a bigger issue. This problem being the facilitation of illegal discrimination. “Statistically, minority employment candidates are indirectly discriminated against, as they are more likely to have criminal records” (Flake). As chances of employment lessen, the economic prosperity of a community decreases and minority crime rates inflate. Criminal rates are typically disproportionately concentrated among low-income people living in high-poverty communities, which leads to cyclical poverty (Cook et al.). For example, “the 2004 homicide rate in Hyde Park (the racially and economically mixed neighborhood that is home to the University of Chicago) was 13 per 100,000; [however,] the homicide rate in the directly adjacent neighborhood of Washington Park ( ¾ of children live below the poverty line and 98 percent black) was nearly five times as high” (Cook et al.). Through this statistic, it is evidenced that lower socioeconomic communities are at a higher risk for crime, unemployment, and recidivism.
Solutions
As mass incarceration not only disproportionately affects minority communities, but is cyclical in its nature, efforts must be made in order to fulfill the purpose of incarceration, dissuading crime. One solution to this problem, is to reconsider legal barriers ex-offenders face when searching for employment (Arvanites). Organizations such as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) offer steps to hiring ex-cons in a safe, unbiased manner. Their suggestions include: reviewing employment applications, considering only convictions while weighing time, making sure disqualifying policies are job related and consistent with business necessity, and establishing an assessment committee (Zeidner). With theses guidelines, possible employers are able to follow a step by step process, ensuring all people have an equal opportunity at employment. Another recommendation is to offer employment incentives to businesses for hiring ex-cons. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (Arvanites) allows businesses to receive a tax reduction when employing an ex-offender. This allows business owners to assess the work ethic of the hired felon for a period of time, while receiving benefits as well. Lastly, government programs such as the Second Chance Act, provide pre and post-release education, training, and transitional services to convicted felons (Arvanites). This act enables convicts with skills to better re-enter society.
Limitations
Due to the vastness and complexity of this issue, there are many limitations to the possible solutions of this problem. More businesses are investing in private prisons as they are a “high-security, low-risk investment” (Gragg). According to law professor Hadar Aviram, these numbers continue to grow, as “private prisons [collectively] profit around 70 billion dollars each year” (Aviram). Another economic obstacle is the corporate benefits from prison labor. For example, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) makes eighty-five cents for every pound of tilapia raised, that Whole Foods then sells for 11.99 dollars per pound. In this case, Whole Foods indirectly reaps the benefits of prison labor, as they make nearly an eleven dollar profit off of every pound of tilapia. Also, Quixotic farming would have had to pay a minimum of 8.23 per hour in 2015, when they only paid prisoners between 74 cents and four dollars a day (Whitehouse). Quixotic farming benefited from prison labor as they were able to profit all funds instead of paying salaries. Another facet that prohibits the possible solutions, is that privatized businesses have the right to defer employment to anyone, as long as it is determined that race, religion, or physical disabilities did not influence the decision. Also, the tax credit is limited as it only lasts for one year. Following that time period, businesses are no longer incentivized to continue ex-con employment (Arvanites). The Second Chance Act also had mixed results as it mainly focuses on federal prisons, and they only make up about 10 percent of the amount of people affected by mass incarceration (Arvanites). Consequently, 90 percent of convicts within county, state, or private prisons are left at a disadvantage.