Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Monday, October 01, 2007
Want Less Crime? Vote No on the Jail Tax (Issue 27)
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
Guest article by Thomas A. Dutton.
One “fact” reigns supreme in the minds of most Cincinnatians—“crime.”
We shouldn’t be surprised by this. After 50 years of mostly white suburbanization, a deindustrialized economy that has produced “jobless ghettos” and underemployment, and a rollback on most governmental initiatives associated with the New Deal and Great Society Programs in favor of an unfettered market, all of which have created large pools of expendable people in the nation’s core, is it any wonder that crime would grip the haves’ imagination?
I remember the many letters to the editor that came in from the white suburbs after the urban uprising in April 2001, expressing relief that suburbanites avoided racial issues. Apparently race means black, and crime is a black thing. With whites safely ensconced in their suburbs and gated communities, their “experience” of reality primarily mediated by the infotainment of sound-byte news, who would know that while “African Americans use drugs at approximately the same rate as whites—and thus constitute only 13 percent of the all drug users in a given month—they are 35 percent of all those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of all those convicted of drug possession, and 74 percent of all those incarcerated for drug possession” (Leith Mullings)? Who knew?
Tantamount to a moral panic, for too many people crime is code for an urban underclass of blacks and other people of color who are thought to be so murderous and deviant that through their “black-on-black violence,” rampant criminality in “drug dealing and welfare dependency,” “aggressive panhandling,” their “teen pregnancy and prostitution,” and their “family breakdown and school dropout rate,” they are a menace to the citizens of Cincinnati.
Cincinnatians equate crime to a call for more jail space, more police officers, more weaponry and technological gadgetry, more surveillance cameras, more police sweeps (“Operation Vortex”), and more legislation regulating behavior in public spaces. These are punitive measures. They arise from a militaristic consciousness, from what sociologist C. Wright Mills cautioned long ago (1958) as “military metaphysics.” And they all illustrate a marked shift, in the making now over the last 20-30 years, in urban policy from a focus on urban revitalization to social control.
This worries Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate and former career military officer who is now professor of History and International Relations at Boston University. In his The New American Militarism (2005), he lays out how Americans today, more than ever before, “are enthralled with military power. The global military supremacy that the United States presently enjoys—and is bent on perpetuating—has become central to our national identity.” The American consciousness is militaristic to its core.
It is a consciousness that disproportionately impacts people of color. The war on welfare morphs into the War on Drugs, which then morphs into a straight-up war on the poor, especially poor people of color and the homeless. The military-industrial complex morphs into the prison-industrial complex. After slavery, Jim Crow, and the ghetto of the 1950s and ‘60s, the prison becomes the next racially enclosing device to define blackness to an ignorant nation. The fallout is catastrophic. For African Americans, as scholar and activist Manning Marable characterizes it, the contemporary situation is a time of “mass unemployment, mass incarceration, and mass disenfranchisement.” In Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine, aggressive legislation targets panhandlers and the homeless, essentially criminalizing them. Street vendors who sell StreetVibes for a living, the locally produced newspaper of the Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, are tarnished as “beggars with newspapers” to be removed from the streets. In Over-the-Rhine specifically, the police began Operation Vortex last year, a crucial frontline operation for gentrification that sweeps up anyone littering, jaywalking, spitting, loitering, drinking for an open container, crossing against the light, dealing drugs, and appearing to deal drugs.
This is what passes for urban policy today, and calls for a bigger jail only reinforce that policy.
Given these circumstances in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati, and other cities across the nation, you have to wonder why the country—and Hamilton County—chooses to enact its military consciousness against its own citizens over other alternatives. As global shifts occur in the economy and impact everyday life in urban neighborhoods, better theoretical lenses can help to understand these overall conditions and especially social inequity and crime more deeply. Instead of linking crime automatically to punitive, militaristic measures, we could understand crime as the local fallout of global political-economic patterns producing joblessness and underemployment, increased geographic racial segregation, increased family debt, decreased real wages for the working class, a stepped-up imperialist campaign to control land internationally and domestically, the exploitation of “cheap” labor and oppressed nationalities, and the dismantling of the welfare state and the public sphere more generally.
Instead of rants about the “need” for more jail space (Leis) and self-bred delusions about social and treatment programs that are nothing close to addressing true need and kick into effect after one is jailed (Portune and Pepper), what would happen if the citizenry of Hamilton County were to have a deep conversation about the real sources of crime and why poverty and mental illness are considered crimes? Coming out the other side of that conversation, I doubt seriously that calls for a new jail are going to be near the top of the list, if it even makes the list at all. Law enforcement will never solve crime; social well-being can.
Notes
Leith Mullings, “Losing Ground,” in Manning Marable, ed., The New Black Renaissance (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2005).
Manning Marable, “Race-ing Justice, Disenfranching Lives: African Americans, Criminal Justice and the New Racial Domain,” Black Commentator
(posted December 7, 2006).
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
01 Oct 2007 at 04:14 pm | #
This guy should come on out of his ivory tower and spend some time down in the hood. I think he might come away with a more realistic mind set.
01 Oct 2007 at 06:28 pm | #
JFD,
How much time have you spent in the hood? punk
01 Oct 2007 at 09:02 pm | #
Thomas A. Dutton is an exceedingly wise person.
Orlando Patterson is as well. Compare Mr. Dutton’s to this column of Mr. Patterson in the Sunday New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30patterson.html?em&ex=1191384000&en=2d55de718b7f3b32&ei=5087
Now I’m going to Google Thomas A. Dutton.
01 Oct 2007 at 09:39 pm | #
Tom runs ‘Buddy’s Place’ (also known as the Miami University Center for Community Engagement) in OTR, right smack in the middle of what many would consider the ‘hood’, not that ad hominem attacks should detract anyway from his well-reasoned and thoughtful piece.
01 Oct 2007 at 09:39 pm | #
The same people have been coming together and “having a conversation” for decades. That conversation has been futile with meager approrpriations to address the root causes and even more meager appropriations to addess the failure to address the root causes.
Talk is cheap and it’s time to start doing something.
It is time for a little “tough love”, a compassionate accountability for all parties: the offenders who refuse help, the government who refused to ackowledge the catatrophic effect of (Republican) negligence to address the real issues and public accountability for failing to support elected officials (and programming) that everyone knew and knows must be provided to end the cycle of poverty that begets the cycle of crime which begets the cycle of violence we now find ourselves in as a society—known as the status quo.
Mental illness and poverty are not criminalized here, what is criminalized and creating another victim (the “offender”) is the indited System itself that keeps doin’ what it’s doin’ and keeps gettin’ what it’s gettin’. That IS the crime and it’s a crime to not fix it now when within our power.
Forced treatment is effective and NECESSARY to end the victimization of persons who trespass on the rights of everyone else in society because they have refused treatment for years, sometimes decades.(And this applies equally to a society that has also refused to provide the treatment)
Compassionate accountability is a compromise, no , not a compromise - but a synthesis, of the ideologies of two approaches to social ills. A blend of ideals and practices that have proven effective in both reducing crime ( and hence the violence) and serving the needs of some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.
Maintaining the status quo is paramount to abandonment. “Tough love” for all of us - those needing the help (and have refused it) , the government (who must administer and lay their reputations upon it at great political risk), and the people (who must pay for it, finally) - must all choke down this bit of social responsiblity and “tough love” and all be accountable.
This article offers no solutions and beckons a “conversation” ? Talk is cheap - it is time to act.
01 Oct 2007 at 10:34 pm | #
Is this the same Thomas A. Dutton, Director of the Miami University Center for Community Engagement in OTR?
Note to Mr. Dutton: I don’t live in the “white suburbs”, as you define them. I won’t make any further comments or elaborations, other than to say that you don’t have the entire forest here. I believe you’re looking at certain select trees & holding them personally accountable for all the problems in this city.
As for the Vortex Unit, it will stay because it truly works. Mr. Dutton, you & you’re progressives are completely outnumbered on that aspect.
Lastly, race isn’t solely reserved for the exclusive rights of black people, although some firmly believe in that context.
02 Oct 2007 at 09:54 am | #
does anyone know if mr dutton is even a resident of hamilton county? per the auditors website he is not a property owner in the county, let alone otr. perhaps he should put his money where his mouth is.
02 Oct 2007 at 10:00 am | #
#2: “How much time have you spent in the hood.”
Twenty-five years.
#4: “not that ad hominem attacks should detract anyway from his well-reasoned and thoughtful piece”
Are you kidding me? The man brought “Global military supremacy” into a debate about a jail. I’m sure Mr Dutton is a very nice man and considered well reasoned by some. What is missing from his perspective; is the expectation of personal responsibility by those misunderstood souls {criminals}, being swept up by the Vortex Unit and the Sheriffs Dept., and that pretty much kills his argument for me.
I also looked into Mr Dutten and apparently he owns no property in Hamilton County. That could mean he rents, or, he does own but it’s held in someone else’s name, or, he is most qualified to talk about ” suburban opinion”, as he may live in one of the very nice suburban communities outside of Hamilton County. If the latter is true then I would suggest It would be much easier for him to conduct his social engineering experiments, that he currently performs at “Buddy Place”; if he were to move his subjects to the same neighborhood where he lives. Think of all the gas he would save.
02 Oct 2007 at 11:37 am | #
Linda if you want well reasoned and thoughtful insights, see #5.
02 Oct 2007 at 02:47 pm | #
Mr. Dutton’s well thought out article was right on the mark—20 years ago.
What he fails to see is that the elected officials now, are different. 20 years ago, the best that could be offered was a conversation on the problem because that is ALL we could do.
The results of that long, decades-old conversation are well-summarized by the National NAACP’s goals and initiatives to reform the criminal justice system. They have remained virtually unchanged for years, since about a day after the conversation began.
And, if you read the Comprehensive Safety Plan, you’ll find those goals and initiatives set forth—finally—- in this plan proposed and supported by our elected officials.
Mr. Dutton, don’t cling to the past, but embrace the future. I know you are suspicious, but aren’t these people worth it?
02 Oct 2007 at 05:57 pm | #
The New Deal and Great Society programs are the driving force behind the disinegration of the black family. The *REAL* cause of much of society’s crime…
Don’t blame white people.
02 Oct 2007 at 08:15 pm | #
anon (#10) says:
Really? I have read it, and find this talk to be window dressing, and not relevant to the heart of a plan where most of the $770+ million funding over 30 years goes to building a new jail, expanding juvenile justice facilities, and operating them, not to mention expanding the sheriff’s patrols. Nor should needed reforms in the efficiencies and inequities of the existing system be dependent on this tax or building a bigger jail. I think the local NAACP recognized the difference between rhetoric and reality, when its members voted to oppose this plan.
03 Oct 2007 at 03:16 am | #
Dear Linda -
Alright, so you want all the programs, efficiencies and reforms to our criminal justice system - so how do you propose to convince the lily white, suburbanites who are closet racists to support a program that they only view as helping black people they couldn’t care less about?
Since MLK, people have been fighting for reforms and justice and services—and in Hamilton County, getting nowhere fast or not very far , very slowly.
This is a compromise deal - if my neighbors will chip in a penny for the reforms and programming I want, I’ll chip in a penny for their damn jail.
Why? Because if I get what I want - the damn jail can sit empty or filled with federal prisoners. I could care less - I want MY community safe from the injustices I see everyday .
I’m poor enough that I can afford it- it won’t make that big of a dent in my cash flow - now my neighbor, buying his third boat or fifth car for his spoiled kids? Well, he’ll meet my pennies and raise me a quarter LOL
03 Oct 2007 at 03:27 am | #
Linda - sorry I forgot - do you even realize why the expansion of the local juvenile facilities is sooooo important?
The “system” is forced to send our kids away from our community, sometimes to that god-forsaken hole up state with all the molestation and abuse going on lately.
We need our children close to home so we can visit them check on them, participate in meetings, go to therapy… we need to bring our babies home and for that reason alone - i would build leis a mansion if he wants - just to bring these children back home….wouldn’t you?
03 Oct 2007 at 11:37 am | #
Hi folks. I’ve been busy writing some pretty important philosophy. For those who are interested, there’s a long and worthwhile read about Categorical Knowledge at my link.
The topic here is grand.
It reminds me of the very topical problem with Hillary and health care, and the both the dissing and the solutions proposed here seem quite similarly inane too. See if you can catch the drift of my analogy, and then I’ll let you do most of the applying of it, to the crime problem.
In health care, there is a great cry for government to pick up the tab for the poor, the kids, the elderly, and saddle it on the backs of the healthy. Those rotten healthy bastards are getting away pretty much Scot free ! (No offense meant to those cheap Scots as am I).
This is the very nature of human nature itself, want and envy.
Democracy makes it possible to act on some of those greedy feelings too, at least until the public coffers run out, or your city is in such ruin, and the taxes are going unpaid, and there ain’t no money left for nothing…
But, in medicine, and likely in crime too, there is an unseen stealth approach that would get better results, more bang for the buck, and another way to skin the cat. Oh! The abuse those poor-poor kitties take!
The solution in medicine is to stop paying doctors and hospitals ALL THE HEALTHCARE DOLLARS and, start paying for preventative medicine. With preventative medicine, this simply entails opening up the swimming pools and all the city’s other athletic facilities twelve hours a day so everyone has every opportunity to stay as healthy as possible.
The answer to the crime problem is the same. Stop spending all the crime budget on police and dungeons, and start spending some of it on a preventative social uplifting, preventative measures such as employment for all those who want to work.
I’m willing to bet, there are plenty of citywide projects that could employ lots of people (if thought out with that in mind) and that could be undertaken with the money some want to spend on a new prison complex, more and louder cop car sirens, and bigger desks for the probation department.
Chain gangs and prison riots are one way, but putting inner city folks to work before they end up imprisoned might be just a bit more humane.
But the problem is most likely, some schmuck is paying off both the mainstream media and a bunch of fat-assed politicians to force through the opportunity to swindle the city out of another pile of borrowed money it can ill afford to spend building another prison.
That’s certainly what health care is all about.
So, just follow the money! And do the right thing!
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
03 Oct 2007 at 09:40 pm | #
I drew attention to thoughtful, educated people above who make a clear case that jails are a bad idea. But why can’t any of them just let it go at that? They should. Here’s why:
1. K.I.S.S.—Keep It Simple Stupid.
2. They always go on to say that the money spent on jails could be better spent on “root causes.” The logic is pitiful. It sounds like an abused wife or child saying, “If only this husband or father would…”
Face it. The same people with the same mentality would just as soon jail you as to cure your root cause. Government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and “people’s” first instinct is to punish you then put you into some “program” where they can forget about you. Government/“people” is the “prime abuser.”
In conclusion, we will get an expanded jail, but, someday in the distant future, in a galaxy far away, enough people might be convinced that jails don’t reduce crime. That will happen faster if intelligent people would simply repeat after me:
Jails don’t reduce crime.
Jails don’t reduce crime.
Jails don’t reduce crime.
Beginning to get the idea?
05 Oct 2007 at 03:43 pm | #
Is this like “Free Crab Tomorrow”?
06 Oct 2007 at 11:39 pm | #
Anon #13 said
Are you sure you’ll get what you want? I think you’ve bought into some empty promises—look at how much money the tax is raising will go to building and operating the jail.
You’re right—it’s a compromise deal, just not a good deal.
08 Oct 2007 at 04:28 pm | #
What’s at issue for Dutton, it seems to me, is not that it is important for those who commit violent crimes to expect to take personal responsibility for their own actions (See JFD #8), or whether or not the main instinct of most Americans is to punish criminals and then put them into some program where they can forget about them (See Gallaher #16). At no point in the article does Dutton argue that the real violent criminals should not be held accountable or take personal responsibility for their violent actions. Neither does Dutton argue that it is more realistic to understand the American People as actually wanting to create a justice system that truly seeks to assure that violent offenders become productive citizens.
In fact, Dutton argues that the real violent criminal should indeed be held accountable, but that the real violent criminal is not the drug user currently behind bars; the real violent criminal is the State that holds him there. And Dutton makes it very clear that the powerful in America today are buying into the idea that punishment is the central solution to dealing with crime. For Dutton, it is simply more practical to argue forcefully against this impractical idea that “punishment and rehabilitation” can act as a “stand-in” for dealing with root causes.
Simply put, what is at issue for Dutton is America’s (and Hamilton County’s) current preoccupation with militaristic solutions for what is really, at its core, a political problem that can only be resolved through a political process that takes seriously the legacy of racism and classism that remains alive and well in our criminal injustice system. If you disagree with Dutton, try arguing against this point, instead of the many fabricated points some of you have associated with his article.
08 Oct 2007 at 08:30 pm | #
Chris,
I wish more threads could get this kind of serious analysis up front rather than the usual silly comments first, followed by name-calling, then relegation to the back pages before serious commenters such as yourself step up.
Still my problem is this:
“a political problem that can only be resolved through a political process that takes seriously the legacy of racism and classism that remains alive and well in our criminal injustice system.”
Sounds like The Banks.
What I’m trying to get across is that government will never be able to deliver justice. By definition. I mean “governing” of people is just not necessary, except by parents, of their children.
Understand I’m a peaceful anarchist, but isn’t peaceful anarchy to only way to go?
10 Oct 2007 at 01:56 pm | #
David,
Isn’t necessary for many of the institutions (including governmental instutions) to be transformed, and not eradicted, for any of the problems associated with racism and classism to be resolved? I can’t imanagine a society without some kind of governing body. While institutions are often oppressive, they can also be made to be liberating. For example, can’t you imagine the institution of schooling as potentially being liberating for students? Are schools, by definition, always and everywhere oppressive? And don’t schools, by definition, require some form of governing body in order to function at all?
10 Oct 2007 at 10:18 pm | #
“I can’t imanagine a society without some kind of governing body. While institutions are often oppressive, they can also be made to be liberating. For example, can’t you imagine the institution of schooling as potentially being liberating for students?”
Sorry about your luck, Chris, for not being able to imagine a society without some kind of governing body. Keep trying.
I, on the other hand, am able to imagine schooling as liberating. I am also fortunate enough to be able to imagine the potential of “education” absent the fetters of government.
11 Oct 2007 at 11:15 am | #
As I wrote previously, I can imagine schools as liberating. However, schools—once they are organized in any fashion—by definition become institutionalized. Now, this institutionalization does not require THE GOVERNMENT per se, but it does require some kind of governing body in order to operate. And yes, this governing body could be radically democratic and radically participatory in nature (a kind of anarchism), but it would nonetheless remain a governmental body. My point is that even anarchism requires a political process for coming to agreed upon understandings for how to move forward. I take the beauty of anarchism to be that this political process is to be radically participatory and radically democratic, involving all the people in the most substantive way possible. And even this kind of anarchist political process creates a governmental body. The beauty, here, is that the governmental body becomes fully accountable to The People in both theory and practice.
12 Oct 2007 at 09:28 pm | #
“My point is that even anarchism requires a political process…”
Chris,
Au contraire.
Anarchism means just relaxing and watching complexity do what it will.
(But you are “coming around.” Keep coming.)