Has the advent of major crime fosterd a de-facto police state in the US?

[RadioRaheem84]

I know this exists anywhere in the world but just by my observations of being thrust back into lower income society from my middle class upbringing in my teens, I've noticed that there is a strict enforcement of the law in lower income areas vs. the higher income areas. An enforcement that is almost unique in the US compared to most developed nations.

Just hearing the complaints from recent immigrants about the police harassment in these areas in comparison to their countries astounds me sometimes. Everything from public drinking to loitering to even enforcement of piddly things like car inspections, insurance and registration, especially in inner city TX where I am from. There is a bit of a fear of the police here, fear of prisons and being arbitrarily thrown in jail for the slightest thing that even surprised many of my immigrant friends from the third world and developed nations.

The lower income areas in the US are very tightly monitored and controlled. There are certain expectations of people in the lower income areas that are not so enforced in the higher income ones. An almost double standard that is imposed to effectively and almost systemically keep a lock down on lower income neighborhoods.

When pressed on this matter, my right wing colleagues insist in repeating the canard that it's just enforcement of the law, but I see it as more than that. I see it as applying a standard that is nearly impossible for everyone in the lower income neighborhoods to meet in order to also control them and keep crime from entering to the higher income neighborhoods.

[JazzRemington]

It's a vicious cycle. There's a perception that low-income (or otherwise working-class) areas are crime-ridden. Because of this, police are more likely to patrol these areas and more likely to harshly enforce the law. Because this creates more arrests, and thus more reports and records of crimes being committed in these areas, it reinforces the perception of low-income areas being crime-ridden. It's not just that the police are enforcing the law - they're selectively enforcing it. I recommend reading "The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison" if you want to learn more about this phenomenon.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ah yes, I have noticed that my perception of my neighborhood is shaped by the media and it's portrayal that it is crime ridden, when while the instances of crime are severe they are still few and far between. What happens more is the enforcement of law that deals a lot with petty crime and issues dealing with economics; i.e. driving without insurance, defaults on ticket payments, etc.

There is a huge double standard in selective enforcement of the law between high income and lower income neighborhoods. This occurs because of the perception that people in the lower income neighborhoods are somehow more prone to crime therefore are always up to no good. Missing payment on a traffic ticket for a higher income younger person is less percieved as an act of defiance as it is for a lower income person who is seen as a menace to society.

[Amphictyonis]

I know this exists anywhere in the world but just by my observations of being thrust back into lower income society from my middle class upbringing in my teens, I've noticed that there is a strict enforcement of the law in lower income areas vs. the higher income areas. An enforcement that is almost unique in the US compared to most developed nations.

Just hearing the complaints from recent immigrants about the police harassment in these areas in comparison to their countries astounds me sometimes. Everything from public drinking to loitering to even enforcement of piddly things like car inspections, insurance and registration, especially in inner city TX where I am from. There is a bit of a fear of the police here, fear of prisons and being arbitrarily thrown in jail for the slightest thing that even surprised many of my immigrant friends from the third world and developed nations.

The lower income areas in the US are very tightly monitored and controlled. There are certain expectations of people in the lower income areas that are not so enforced in the higher income ones. An almost double standard that is imposed to effectively and almost systemically keep a lock down on lower income neighborhoods.

When pressed on this matter, my right wing colleagues insist in repeating the canard that it's just enforcement of the law, but I see it as more than that. I see it as applying a standard that is nearly impossible for everyone in the lower income neighborhoods to meet in order to also control them and keep crime from entering to the higher income neighborhoods.

I find the suburbs are more tightly controlled. I now live in "the ghetto" (have for 10 years) and find it easier to have shows, drink undisturbed and generally cause small time trouble without police involvement.

It's pretty simple, when a percentage of the population is not given equal access to the means of production that population will not be as free as the other which has total access to the means of production.

The ultimate freedom will be found when EVERYONE has equal access and control over the means of production. Thug life is a bi product of scarcity. An ego driven reaction to having nothing.

[Red Commissar]

Popular crime fighting techniques tend to focus on patrolling "hot spots" and the concept of "broken windows" that was popularized in NYC. Around where I live (Dallas), people associate certain parts with out of control crime (In this case, South Dallas, Oak Cliff, and parts of East Dallas), while thinking other parts are absent of crime and if it does happen, it's because elements from the hot spots spilled over. People get paranoid about the latter enough for some of the upscale neighborhoods to hire private security to patrol their neighborhoods, which I find amusing...

Of course getting people to look at the large picture is hard to do. Most of them are fairly convinced that people who live in bad neighborhoods are there because of some personal short coming (they don't work hard, welfare, etc) and that they need to combat crime where it sprouts. How to prevent crime you ask them? More police and guns, nothing about improving social conditions- of course doing anything to the latter would mean directly confronting the issue of capitalism, which people don't want to deal with apparently.

[threepeaches]

More police and guns, nothing about improving social conditions- of course doing anything to the latter would mean directly confronting the issue of capitalism, which people don't want to deal with apparently.


I'll drink to that.

Even with their draconian laws, the majority of British police don't carry guns while on the beat. Here that sort of thing is unimaginable; we couldn't possibly police ourselves, especially not without weapons!

So I'm gonna answer your question in the title of this post with a firm "Yes."

Personally, I don't know anyone who isn't afraid of the police but of course I surround myself with people who share a lot of my beliefs. I've gathered, though, based on responses to things like the USA PATRIOT Act, that generally Americans will take oppression over a little bit of insecurity and over time, we've surrendered a few rights here and there so that the police state could force its way in. And here it is, folks.

Americans don't want to address the warped racial demographics within our overflowing prison system. Nor do they want to address the broken penal system and the race/class discrepancies within the law (e.g. crack vs. coke possession). Not only is it a class issue like you mentioned, Radio, it's pretty deeply intertwined with race as well.

[Obzervi]

There is just as much crime in middle class white neighborhoods as in low income minority neighborhoods, its just that the difference in police presence makes it seem there is more in the latter. I used to personally know many suburban white kids who would spend their nights walking around the neighborhood vandalizing cars and houses. They had the audacity to do it openly because they knew their white skin gave them a certain amount of privilege to do whatever the fuck they wanted, because after all they're "good kids". Guess what? Not a cop in a sight, never saw a single one patrolling the neighborhood. Now they're in college and doing even stupider shit. I would argue that whites commit far worse crimes on average than other races (think of white collar crimes), as opposed to a starving black man who steals a sandwich from the system which has impoverished him and spends years in prison thanks to the racist 3 strike law.

[MarxSchmarx]

The rise of the American police state really tracks de-industrialization. Just as American industry started its rapid decline, cocaine in all its forms flourished to help heal the deep wounds created by the massive under/unemployment of a less and semi-skilled workforce. It took a while for crummy service jobs to fill the void - and the cocaine epidemic was a serious plague on urban america - rural america has been going through an analogous disaster with crystal meth for several years.

But what cocaine did was spur a lot of inner city crime in the late 70s and early 80s - and the extent of the cocaine induced crime wave is hard to understand 30 years later. The brunt of early de-industrialization and the drug cartels marketing strategy fell on black urbanites. For many middle class whites this therefore confirmed not yet extinguished prejudices about "out of control blacks" and crack/welfare queens. This spurred the ever increasing puritanical hysteria that has always had a place in American life.

I think the only things that have prevented the crystal meth culture from spiraling out of control are (1) the state is already burdened with the adverse consequences of the previous war on inner city drugs, (2) in much of North America the problem is largely one that concerns white people, and perhaps (3) the rural nature of the crime makes it less profitable to engage in associated criminal enterprises than would be possible in a dense urban environment.

The heart of the problem is that the bourgeois state has little other tools at its disposal for dealing with social problems besides increased repression via the criminal justice system. It is likely that this is a manifestation of the material contradictions of capitalism - that the state, nominally predicated on the night-watchman model, creates or at least facilitates more problems than it can handle using the prevailing ideology. The only viable solution under this system is the establishment of a police state.

[Tzadikim]

I think it's also important to look at the institutional initiatives (for the capitalist class) to facilitate the creation of what I consider to be a de facto, if decentralized, police state.

A basic fact of the American penal system is that a vastly disproportionate number of inmates stem from the working class. By penalizing workers and removing them from the job pool, the capitalists are (a) more capable of fudging official statistics on unemployment and dependency, and (b) controlling the excess flow of labour and keeping it within the bounds needed for the continued operation of their system. Moreover, the introduction of a tribalistic mentality so often associated with repeat incarceration (i.e. gang affiliation and related habits) serve to keep class consciousness at a minimum.

The prison system has another effect, this more immediate for the capitalists: in recent years we've seen a wave of "privatized prisons"; this tendency was in full force as early as 1993 (http://mediafilter.org/mff/prison.html), at the height of the crack epidemic. This "merger of State and corporate power" opened up new doors to capitalist exploitation that the previous system denied them. Already there's been limited implementation of the old "work gang" system on a small level, though this has henceforth been mostly limited to the partially-privatized Louisiana penal system. I'd not be surprised if we see this implemented more fully in the coming years as the austerity measures run their course.

These were the leaders in the "industry" as of 1993, per that site:


Prison Prlvateers
The growing private prisons industry-several dozen companies contracting with state entities to provide and/or operate jails or prisons-is oligopolistic in structure. CCA and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation dominate the upper tier, control more than half the industry's operations, and run 29 minimum- and medium-security facilities with more than 10,000 beds. Beneath the big two is a tier of lesser players: a cluster of smaller regional companies, such as Kentucky-based U.S. Corrections Corporation and Nashville-based Pricor; and small corrections divisions of international concerns, including construction giant Bechtel Corporation. The boom has created a shadier realm of speculators ready to turn a quick profit from the traffic in convicts. Compared to the big three, these smaller companies are undercapitalized, inexperienced, understaffed, and are more likely to fail eventually. Run by hucksters, fast-talking developers, and snake-oil salesmen, they sell for-profit prisons-disguised as economic development-to depressed rural communities desperate to bolster their budgets and local economies. The pitch is simple: Prisons are overcrowded! Build a prison and the prisoners will come to you! You'll reap the benefits in terms of jobs and increased tax revenues! Reality is a bit more complex. Quirks in the federal tax codes remove exemptions for prison bonds if more than ten percent of prisoners are out-of-state, if state prison officials are reluctant to have their prisoners housed out-of-state, or if large cities with severe overcrowding are unwilling or unable to pay to transport local prisoners hundreds of miles. In short in the trade in convict bodies, supply and demand don't always match. Prisons built on a speculative basis are a risky venture-at least for the towns or counties involved; the speculators take their money off the top.

Wackenhut
Historically, this bottom tier has been the locus of most of the publicized problems and abuses. But although these bottom feeders attract "60 Minutes"-style scandal of banal corruption, it is in the top tiers that the most serious potential for abuse exists. Wackenhut, founded by former FBI of ficial George Wackenhut in 1954, is the largest and best known, as well as the oldest and most diversified. From its beginnings as a small, well-connected private security firm, Wackenhut has grown to a global security conglomerate with earnings of $630.3 million in 1992. Prison management is only the latest addition to its panoply of security and related services. When the Coral Gables, Florida-based firm first entered the prison business in 1987, it had one 250-bed INS detention center. It now operates 11 facilities in five states housing nearly 5,500 prisoners. Wackenhut maintains two medium security prisons in Australia and boasts of "prospects for additional facilities in the U.S., South America, Europe, and the Pacific Rim.'' While some of its competitors in the private repression industry have specialized-Pinkerton and Burns, for example, lead the "rent-a-cop" field-Wackenhut tries to cover all the bases. Its 1991 revenues reflect its corporate diversity: The private security division contributed 43 per cent; the international division, 22 percent; airport security services, 15 percent; contracts to guard nuclear installations and Department of Energy facilities, 10 percent; and, last but not least, private corrections contributed 10 percent. Given the high rate of return in its corrections division-10 percent compared to 1.8 percent overall-Wackenhut has indicated that it wants to see that area grow.

Corrections Corporation of America
Its closest rival is CCA, which despite its youth and small size compared to the Wackenhut empire, has emerged as the pioneer and the industry leader. But unlike Wackenhut, CCA -like the second tier companies such as Pricor, U.S. Corrections, Concepts, Inc., and Correction Management Af filiates-is almost completely dependent on private imprisonment for its revenues. Founded in 1983 by the investors behind Kentucky Fried Chicken, CCA used the sales skills of Nashville banker/ financier Doctor R. Crants and the political connections of former Tennessee Republican Party chair Tom Beasley- co-founders of the company-to win early contracts. The next year, CCA cut its first big deals: to operate INS detention centers in Houston and Laredo, and to run the Silverdale Workhouse (Hamilton County prison farm) in its home state, Tennessee. In the next nine years, CCA grew steadily to become the industry leader, with 21 detention facilities hous ing more than 6,000 prisoners in six states, the U.K., and Australia. Its profits are up by nearly 50 percent from its 1991 end-of-the-year figures.

Pricor
Once number three behind CCA and Wackenhut, Pricor has taken a different tack from its competitors. It carved out a specialized niche within the private prison industry by convincing underused county jails in rural Texas that they could profit by accepting inmates from overcrowded national and statewide prisons. After cutting its corporate teeth on juvenile education and detention and halfway houses, expan sion into adult prisons must have seemed a natural step. In 1986, its first year of adult prison operations, Pricor opened minimum security detention facilities totaling 170 beds in Alabama and Virginia. By 1990, the company looked west to Texas, with its seemingly unending supply of prisoners and profits. Soon, it operated or had contracts pending for six 500-bed county "jails for hire," mainly in underbudgeted and underpopulated West Texas, and also with one 190-bed pre release center operated under contract with the Texas Department of Corrections. Although Pricor, fueled by its West Texas operations, posted fiscal 1991 revenues of more than $30 million for its adult corrections division, its Texas project was in shambles by mid-1992.

[Red Commissar]

The prison-industrial complex has become more and more influencial in law enforcement and prison policy. Particularly in states like Texas with their "tough on crime" out look, or in states with an overloaded prison systems.

It's in their interest to keep prisoners flowing through it, a revolving door of sorts. Public funding, private profit.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I don't think it has yet. However, when the US begins to setup complex camera systems like the UK, then I would have to say yes. And while that is happening in some major cities already, it is still very, very small compared to the UK... However, if this crap does keep on going, we'll be a hard core police state within 5-10 years from now. If the tea party gets power in the government, it will be 2-3 years from now.

[Red Commissar]

The Tea Party getting into government is doubtful. It's a pressure group on political groups.

I think the socioeconomic changes brought upon by urban sprawl has made the possibility of this much, much easier to occur. More than ever poor segments of society are stuck in certain parts of the city, while the more affluent communities are far away.

Hell, I remember when there was discussion on drawing up the light-rail system in Dallas to the suburbs up north, some of their communities went apeshit thinking it would give an easy way for the people in the bad neighborhoods to come up and sully their nice lives. :DKeeping the poor segments of the population even more concentrated in decaying parts of the city while focusing patrols on the run down neighborhoods, while the affluent neighborhoods tend to maintain powerful, and many times overreaching, police forces.