Social Justice Matters: Overcrowded Prisons and Their Consequences

Here in California, prison overcrowding has been in the news rather a lot lately, ever since the decision to mandate the early release of thousands of prisoners to bring the prison population down. Even after this mandate, California’s prison population will still be at over 100% of capacity. But overcrowding isn’t just a problem in California’s prisons. It is an issue across the United States and has been since the 1970s, when prison populations started skyrocketing.

The treatment of prisoners is a human rights issue. Prison overcrowding directly contributes to inhumane conditions which no person should be kept in, no matter what crimes that person has committed. And overcrowding is the result of social attitudes, political policy, and direct actions on the part of people like voters. This means that we can all be involved in playing a role in changing the way we handle corrections in the United States and acting to reduce prison overcrowding.

There are a number of contributing factors involved in prison overcrowding. One problem is mandatory sentencing laws, especially for drug convictions, and laws like the three strikes law in California. These laws remove any leeway in sentencing, forcing judges to sentence people to prison terms even when the circumstances of the case might actually indicate that other measures would be more appropriate. Mandatory sentencing is an especially big problem when you consider the race and class disparities which are rife throughout the justice system in the United States.

To put it bluntly, people of colour and people of lower social classes are more likely to find themselves on trial for crimes they did not commit. They are less likely to have access to adequate legal representation. And when the trial is over and they are convicted, mandatory sentencing laws mean that they must go to jail, even if a judge thinks that rehabilitation, conditional release, and other measures would be more appropriate. Innocent people who lack privilege will end up in prison. They do every day.

At the same time that mandatory sentencing laws are being passed, laws criminalising an increasing number of behaviours are also being passed. The result is that not only are judges forced to send people to prison in cases where it might not be appropriate, but they are forced to do so more of the time because there are more activities which come with mandatory sentences than ever before. This country’s response to gang violence and drugs has been, thus far, to criminalise. Criminalisation fails to address these issues in any meaningful way, and it leads to overcrowding in our prisons.

Overcrowding puts prisoners at significant risk. People living in crowded conditions are more likely to get sick, stay sick, and pass diseases on to others. They are more likely to experience mental health problems, particularly stress-related mental illnesses. They are more likely to develop aggression and frustration. Being forced into crowded conditions with other prisoners results in riots, abuse, and assault. The prison system struggles to keep up with disciplinary problems when it has minimal staff and outdated facilities. This often results in brutal abuse at the hands of guards and other prison personnel.

People with disabilities, trans* folks, and people of colour are especially vulnerable in prisons. Hierarchies exist in prison just as they do in the outside world, and people living in marginalised bodies rapidly become targets for abuse. Rates of prison rape and assault are extremely high and they are especially high for minorities. Prisons fail to meet the needs of vulnerable members of the prison population; trans women are imprisoned with men, people with cognitive disabilities are housed with the general population, and people of colour are slotted wherever they fit, with no regard to racial tensions. It’s no coincidence that race riots have exploded in several California prisons and that the response is either total racial segregation or a ‘colour blind’ approach in which prisons completely ignore racial differences as though this will magically make them go away.

Overcrowding also limits access to resources. This includes health care for prisoners. Prisoners have died due to lack of health access because a nurse or doctor is not available and it’s considered ‘unsafe’ to transfer a prisoner for medical care. Considering that rates of hepatitis, HIV, and numerous other chronic conditions are high in prisons, lack of access to routine health care is a serious issue. Lack of access to medications or irregular access to medications puts prisoners with chronic illnesses at extreme risk.

But it’s not just about physical health care. Prisoners don’t have access to exercise facilities, which, if nothing else, would provide them with mechanisms for working off stress and aggression. They do not have access to education, to mental health care, to rehabilitation, to drug counseling, to vocational training. Prisoners are literally warehoused as though they are objects, not people. Upon release, they have no skills, no education, and no support network. This has direct consequences for society; it’s hard to address recidivism when prisoners aren’t provided with any tools which they might be able to use once they are released.

Prisoners are human beings. This is something which people sometimes seem to forget, even people with liberal politics who are often accused of being bleeding hearts or softies. Treating prisoners like objects, like inconveniences, like things which can be shuffled around, is a grave human rights violation. And it’s a horrific disservice.

As a society, we say that some people must be punished for their crimes with incarceration. As a society, we can’t even be bothered to confirm that we are incarcerating the right people, let alone providing people in prison with basic rights. The right to not be raped. The right to sufficient nutrition and health care. The right to not be abused. We, as a society, have the responsibility to care for the people we say we are imprisoning for our protection. The fact that we are not doing that reflects extremely poorly on us.

27 May, 2010 – 10:43 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in politics | Tagged , |

Robotic Aspens

Everett Maroon at I Fry Mine In Butter: All Gleed Out

It’s occurred to my partner and me that there are a couple of concepts on Glee headed on a collision course: a “new” kind of masculinity that pretends at being more emotionally available, and old-school expectations for social positioning, especially around the margins of culture.

Yes I linked to this already this morning but I want to make sure you see it.

RMJ at Bitch Magazine: TelevIsms: Spoiler alert! Lost is Heteronormative!

Lost’s vision of love is from a very straight, very traditional, very Christian point of view.

gwen at Sociological Images: More Sexualized Violence in Fashion (content warning)

Anyone who pays much attention to the fashion world will have noticed fashion photographers have an ongoing obsession with images of women looking dead.

Travis R. Wright at Metro Times: Banksy bombs Detroit

Whereas Banksy typically, in other cities, elicits retorts from ignorant municipal types calling his work simple vagrancy, in Detroit he was damn good news, even if he fervently, inadvertently divided the arts community.

Brianna Snyder at New Haven Advocate: Anonymity & the Internet: No Comment

Commenting is less considered a reader right these days, and more and more a privilege.

Mick Dumke at Chicago Reader: Transparency’s a Big Joke

Though the FOIA is designed to help all citizens access public records, it’s a critical tool for reporters, a way of asking questions about government operations with the weight of state law behind them.

27 May, 2010 – 10:08 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in interesting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Glee: Theatricality

So, remember how, writing about Glee last week, I discussed the fact that the show is straddling a strange divide between feeling filled with stiff, awkward, Teachable Moments, and the over the top camp that the show is getting so much attention for? And how I said that really wasn’t working for me, on a lot of levels? Vascillating between tones is a tough line to walk and Glee has not been doing it well in my opinion, although apparently a lot of notable critics disagree.

This week. Was not the solution. Glee has apparently decided to take a serious turn and it’s not working out at all well. Here’s the thing. There are lots of saccharine teen dramas that are filled with lots of Learning Experiences and occasional light humour. Those shows have a place, they are a genre. It’s not something that I am personally interested in, but it’s a genre, and I respect it. Then you have your biting social commentary embedded in sarcasm, which is what Glee is trying to do and failing at.

The two do not mix well. Oil and water, people. If Glee thinks that it can get away with extremely problematic and troped characterisations because it’s including Learning Experiences, it is wrong. It is very, very wrong. Indeed, a show that is presenting itself as oh so very socially progressive will be held to a high standard, because it is opening itself up to scrutiny.

Glee has had a number of Very Special Episodes, which plays into the show’s metamythology; it wants to present itself as something that is resisting stereotypes, breaking ground, teaching people things. Thus, it has to single out the minorities on the show and use them as teaching objects. Glee apparently missed the class about how you can show, not tell.

‘Theatricality’ was all about how it’s ok to be yourself, and it was also a Very Special Gay Episode, and I will be honest, I cringed throughout. It just felt embarrassing. It was so earnest and serious and stagey, all at the same time. I wanted to hide under a blanket or something.

Let’s explore the highly problematic narrative of shuffling Kurt off with the girls, yet again. ‘The girls in the glee club pay tribute to Lady Gaga,’ says the synopsis, and that tells you a lot about how people view Kurt. People. Gay men are not women. I really cannot say enough that I view this is a reiteration of a very old stereotype and it’s also a very neat neutering of Kurt. He’s made as nonthreatening as possible by the fact that he hangs out with the women and sings in a tenor, and note that he was not given a conscious choice in this episode. It was assumed that of course Kurt would prefer to perform with the girls. And, you know, there absolutely are gay men like Kurt. There are gay teens who feel more comfortable hanging out with girls. There are gay teens who love musicals and dressing up. All of these things are undeniably true, and I want to support the creation of a world where all of these things are safe to do, where gay teens can be themselves.

The problem with Kurt is not the character, it’s what the character represents. The problem is that he doesn’t seem break any new ground for gay characters on television, no matter how hard Glee tries to wrap it up in claims that you can just ‘be yourself.’  The problem is that I don’t really see how Kurt’s characterisation advances the cause of out gay teens. Are there any homophobic bigots sitting at home watching Glee and thinking ‘gee, I should stop picking on that poor gay kid’? Probably not.

He’s a caricature of the television gay male. Sure, it’s a stereotype rooted in a reality, for some gay men. But this, or the deeply repressed closeted gay man, is the only gay representation we see. That’s not balanced. That’s not resisting stereotypes and dominant narratives. I think it’s dangerous to criticise a gay character for being flamboyant in a way that argues that gay men shouldn’t be flamboyant, but I also think it’s valid to criticise characterisations like Kurt’s because of what they represent.

I would like it if we had progressed enough, as a society, that characters like Kurt felt natural and organic because there was such a broad spectrum of gay representation on television that it didn’t feel like a reiteration of a stereotype, but an affirmation of an identity. I would also love it if we didn’t automatically assume that characters like Kurt are gay. Since neither of those things are going to happen in the near future, I think we need to ask how characters like Kurt can be a presented in a way that doesn’t reinforce stereotypes. So far, I feel like Kurt’s characterisation has been harmful, although I know that people disagree. I’m just not sure what readers are supposed to be taking away from his character. That all people who act like Kurt are gay? That all gay men act like Kurt? Because the message I am taking away is certainly not ‘it’s ok to be gay, and to be like Kurt’ considering the fact that Kurt is surrounded by harmful, inaccurate, and infuriating stereotypes.

I think there’s a takeaway there. The other characters poison me on Kurt, making it really hard for me to view his character objectively, or as a standalone. Conversely, so far most of the people I’ve seen talking about how Kurt is such a terrific character are fans of the show and like the other characterisations. I think that shows how difficult it is for us, as viewers, to separate out the elements of a show. One could also ask if they should be separated, or if the show should be viewed as a whole.

Sure, one could argue that he’s a representation of how difficult it is to be out and gay in very conservative communities. And one could argue that it would be empowering for gay teens in those communities to see Kurt, just like I might have benefited from seeing trans* teens when I was Kurt’s age. And maybe if Kurt’s character wasn’t wrapped up in the identity of a show that claims to be teaching viewers something, that’s exactly how I would read him. Maybe I would really like his character if he was being allowed to be just a character, instead of The Token Gay Character Who Is Here To Teach Us.

I’m not a gay teen, so I can’t speak to whether or not Kurt’s character is empowering for those viewers. If he is, that’s not something I really want to take away from them, but I’m wondering if there would be a way to strike a balance that provided viewers in general with a great gay character while also showing gay teens that they are not alone. Like, maybe giving Kurt a boyfriend who is radically different from Kurt (and isn’t closeted and tragic), to provide us with a more balanced representation of gay identities?

For those who do view Kurt’s depiction as positive but agree that other depictions are problematic (and I think that this is very much a case where there is no right and wrong, and there are many ways to interpret his character): Why is it that the gay character is the only one that the show can do reasonably well? What does that say about the creators of Glee?

This show is so fucking hypocritical, it makes me scream. It wants to  be given cookies for Teaching Us Things but what is it teaching us? The episode led with an intro reminding us that if you are a wheelchair user, being a dancer is not a dream you can realise. Later in the episode, viewers were indirectly lectured on using the R-word, in the same scene that involved a lecture on the F-word. While comparing both to the N-word.

Let me repeat myself here, in case this is not clear: Glee depicts incredibly problematic and heavily criticised characterisations of disability, and it wants to be patted on the back for reminding viewers that, hey, you shouldn’t use that bad word. Anna wrote recently at FWD about why talking about language isn’t enough, and Glee has clearly bought into the idea that if it identifies the ‘bad word’ and pledges not to say it, it has accomplished the goal. And is now an ally. No. The R-word isn’t the problem. The social attitudes are the problem. And guess what Glee is doing? It is reinforcing those social attitudes. It is saying that disability is a horrible miserable fate, that people with disabilities primarily have a role as object lessons and teachers, not human beings, and it wants to be applauded for telling viewers not to use the R-word?

In a scene where it is basically implied that the R-word is the new N-word? That the F-word is the new N-word? Fucking no. Homophobia is not the new Black. Ableism is not the new Black. Homophobia is homophobia. Ableism is ableism. Racism is racism. And bad words are symptoms of problematic social attitudes. They themselves are not the problem. Appropriation of other oppressions is not the solution to resisting oppression.

Calling someone a faggot isn’t bad because it’s like using the N-word. These are two separate issues, and I do not appreciate seeing them conflated.

And, as Everett Maroon pointed out, this scene with Kurt’s father was marked by aggression and violence (comments recommended). It’s a theme that runs throughout the series, with the expression of masculinity often taking the form of  violence, that contrasts all the more starkly with Kurt’s femme presentation. Go read the rest of his post, instead of reading me repeating it to you, ok?

In comments on Everett’s post, several folks brought up the racialisation of homophobia on Glee and particularly in this episode, in the context of a larger discussion about how the show claims to be transgressive when really all it does is appropriate and stereotype the experiences of marginalised groups, and do it badly, to boot. On Twitter, mike_le pointed out: ‘The homophobic football player on the last #Glee episode’s had more lines than any other black male on the show so far. Kinda a bummer.’

I think that actually tells you a lot about this show.

27 May, 2010 – 9:05 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in television | Tagged , , |