In the field of corrections, there are lots of labels, names, and terms (many that I dislike) that the public frequently applies to people who are housed in, live in, and are processed by jails and prison.
These terms are frequently used in a simplistic and dehumanizing manner. Take for example, the word offender. I think we can agree that many of the things that people who have been convicted did were offensive, but not all actions that they may have engaged in rise to this label. And, as we know, some people who are incarcerated are wrongfully convicted.
But when it comes time to choose the appropriate terms for someone who is locked up in or released from a carceral setting, a sufficient amount of nuance should be observed. People who are incarcerated in the United States, tend to differentiate among the labels prisoners, inmates, and convicts. Each term means something different to them, however, this is a different discussion from the one here.
The current tendency to use the expressions or terms formerly incarcerated or returning citizens, by well-meaning activists and academics, people working in the field of restorative justice, and the perpetual bomb throwers, who somehow magically show up during these discussions, is short-sighted. Worse, there is often an implicit suggestion that the scholarship that has been done to date using the terms related to the label exconvict (including convict, felon, inmate, or prisoner) is somewhat suspect.
Let’s start with the expression returning citizens. When a formerly incarcerated person is released from carceral custody, not all of their rights are restored. This includes, but is not limited to serving on a jury, voting, and owning a gun. Thus, to call them a returning citizen may be aspirational, but it does not accurately reflect their status.
Next, just because we change terms to formerly incarcerated or returning citizen does not somehow blunt, nor erase the stigma or objectification society assigns to people who have criminal records. There are innumerable collateral consequences of a criminal conviction that go beyond the label we ascribe to people who have spent time behind bars. For instance, criminal records hurt the chances for many people to secure appropriate housing or to gain employment.
Reginald Dwayne Betts, a relatively recent MacArthur Genius recipient, who spent over eight years incarcerated in a Virginia prison, became a respected poet, and completed Yale Law School upon release, put it most clearly when he stated, “I really just don’t like being called formerly incarcerated as a part of my title. I would much rather be called a carjacker or a convict or an inmate or a jailbird. Cause to do all this shit and be reduced by your allies to a condition brought on by the pistol you held is wild.”
So why then do some people insist upon using the labels formerly incarcerated or returning citizen?
Some of these individuals may be attempting to draw a distinction between old terms and new ones in an effort to effect change. But, as there’s no consensus among the formerly incarcerated community on how they want these terms used, policing this language amounts to little more than virtue signaling.
Thus, insisting that we must change the label of exconvict to formerly incarcerated or returning citizen seems more like a misplaced effort.
It does not materially improve the pressing and more important issues at hand, nor does it assist the lives of prisoners, ameliorate inhumane prison conditions, address the problems of mass incarceration, or solve the real challenges that people who are released from jail or prison face. In short, terminology debates do not improve their lives.
Photo Credit
Photographer: Patrick Denker
Title: Modern Chain Gang, Meridian, Texas
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-10-04-at-10.48.02-AM.png601800Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2021-10-07 12:47:212024-10-29 21:43:22What’s in a name? Exconvict, formerly incarcerated, or returning citizen?
Here are six possible reasons why this increase might have occurred.
To begin with, there may be more availability of guns on the street. Not only is there data to support the increase in gun sales, but some commentators have suggested that a certain percentage of the population used their stimulus check to purchase guns. Keep in mind that these sales were disproportionately from fearful white middle class people who live in the suburbs.
Alternatively, the guns that were used in homicides may be of better quality. Many of the guns on the street are of low quality, typically used to threaten a potential victim of a robbery and not necessarily because it will be fired. By default, brand new guns, on the other hand, are of better quality.
Additionally, another reason why homicides may have increased in 2020 is that people using the guns have become better skilled at using them. Shooters may have had more time on their hands to improve their ability to use these weapons.
Moreover, the situations in which guns are used may have increased, thus there may have more domestic violence (e.g.., families living in close proximity for longer periods of time), gang activity, including competition for scarce markets.
Another possible reason for the spike in homicides is that first responders, especially EMTs may have been slower to get to gun-shot victims. Why? They were tied up with COVID-19 related patients, and thus the times between dispatch and arrival on the scene may have been slower. Thus, a certain percentage of victims of shootings may have died because of slower response times. A similar situation may have occurred in the emergency departments of our hospitals that were crowded with COVID-19 patients.
Finally, a decrease in trust in the criminal justice system in general, and police in particular to “serve and protect” may have pushed some members of the public to handle their disputes with others on their own and resort to gun violence.
Regardless these are all speculations regarding the increase in the murder rate in 2020. Until we get a better handle on who the shooters and victims are, especially finding out why they decided to pull the trigger, we will probably not really know for sure why there was an increase last year.
Title of photo: Crime Scene Patrol Cars
Photographer: F. Muhammad
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/crime-scene-g6873bd2d6_1920.jpg12801920Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2021-09-30 03:55:462021-10-05 17:01:36What explains the 2020 spike in murders in the United States?
The public has also witnessed graffiti and street art in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic that has raged throughout the world for the past year-and-a-half. Many of us have seen the images of graffiti and street art connected to the pandemic in the news media, in particular print media (especially newspapers and magazines) and via social media websites like Instagram.
Short of a full accounting of COVID-19 graffiti and street art, researchers Heather Shirey & David Todd Lawrence are trying to achieve, there are a number of recurrent themes that these Coronavirus images play on like fear, frustration, hope, mourning, solidarity, and thanks to front line health care workers like doctors and nurses.
Many of the images are of people, some of them iconic (e.g., Bill Gates, Vincent Van Gough, Steve Jobs, etc.) wearing face masks, protective gloves or other assorted Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). A smattering of graffiti and street art images have superman logos painted on them. Other pieces involve a cataloguing of previous pandemics in order to contextualize the current one that we are experiencing. Some of the work approaching street art have sheets draped as masks in front of murals, street art or graffiti depicting images of people. Otherwise pieces are monochromatic, while others are multicolored.
Most of the content about graffiti and street art and COVID produced by the news media mainly contain images. Few of them provide analyses. But recent scholarship is changing all this. There are now a handful of interesting pieces of scholarship, published in scholarly journals like Crime, Media, Culture, the Nuart Journal, and Visual Studies, that are addressing the graffiti and street art of COVID.
It is through this kind of scholarly analysis that we will have a deeper and richer understanding of the graffiti and street art produced during this time period.
Photo Credit
Photographer: duncan
Title: Coronavirus graffiti, Leake Street
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/49658844141_3085958daa_o-scaled.jpg14392560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2021-09-24 02:28:092021-09-24 02:28:09Documenting and analyzing Graffiti and Street Art in connection with COVID-19
What’s in a name? Exconvict, formerly incarcerated, or returning citizen?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn the field of corrections, there are lots of labels, names, and terms (many that I dislike) that the public frequently applies to people who are housed in, live in, and are processed by jails and prison.
These terms are frequently used in a simplistic and dehumanizing manner. Take for example, the word offender. I think we can agree that many of the things that people who have been convicted did were offensive, but not all actions that they may have engaged in rise to this label. And, as we know, some people who are incarcerated are wrongfully convicted.
But when it comes time to choose the appropriate terms for someone who is locked up in or released from a carceral setting, a sufficient amount of nuance should be observed. People who are incarcerated in the United States, tend to differentiate among the labels prisoners, inmates, and convicts. Each term means something different to them, however, this is a different discussion from the one here.
The current tendency to use the expressions or terms formerly incarcerated or returning citizens, by well-meaning activists and academics, people working in the field of restorative justice, and the perpetual bomb throwers, who somehow magically show up during these discussions, is short-sighted. Worse, there is often an implicit suggestion that the scholarship that has been done to date using the terms related to the label exconvict (including convict, felon, inmate, or prisoner) is somewhat suspect.
Let’s start with the expression returning citizens. When a formerly incarcerated person is released from carceral custody, not all of their rights are restored. This includes, but is not limited to serving on a jury, voting, and owning a gun. Thus, to call them a returning citizen may be aspirational, but it does not accurately reflect their status.
Next, just because we change terms to formerly incarcerated or returning citizen does not somehow blunt, nor erase the stigma or objectification society assigns to people who have criminal records. There are innumerable collateral consequences of a criminal conviction that go beyond the label we ascribe to people who have spent time behind bars. For instance, criminal records hurt the chances for many people to secure appropriate housing or to gain employment.
Finally, most of the “we don’t call them convicts or excons anymore” crowd, do not ask convicts, or exconvicts, which labels they would prefer. And if they do ask incarcerated people what terms they like, the studies that have been done have not used rigorous social scientific methods, and thus the results are not conclusive.
Reginald Dwayne Betts, a relatively recent MacArthur Genius recipient, who spent over eight years incarcerated in a Virginia prison, became a respected poet, and completed Yale Law School upon release, put it most clearly when he stated, “I really just don’t like being called formerly incarcerated as a part of my title. I would much rather be called a carjacker or a convict or an inmate or a jailbird. Cause to do all this shit and be reduced by your allies to a condition brought on by the pistol you held is wild.”
So why then do some people insist upon using the labels formerly incarcerated or returning citizen?
Some of these individuals may be attempting to draw a distinction between old terms and new ones in an effort to effect change. But, as there’s no consensus among the formerly incarcerated community on how they want these terms used, policing this language amounts to little more than virtue signaling.
Thus, insisting that we must change the label of exconvict to formerly incarcerated or returning citizen seems more like a misplaced effort.
It does not materially improve the pressing and more important issues at hand, nor does it assist the lives of prisoners, ameliorate inhumane prison conditions, address the problems of mass incarceration, or solve the real challenges that people who are released from jail or prison face. In short, terminology debates do not improve their lives.
Photo Credit
Photographer: Patrick Denker
Title: Modern Chain Gang, Meridian, Texas
What explains the 2020 spike in murders in the United States?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossLast week the Federal Bureau of Investigation released the most recent crime statistics and it revealed a surprising finding; the number of murders (21,500) which occurred last year (2020) was the highest it has ever been since 1960. Meanwhile, most other crimes, for which data is systematically collected, decreased.
Keep in mind that last year was unique as we were in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and there were numerous protests across the country, most of which were in support of Defunding or Abolishing the Police, Black Lives Matter, and in reaction to the murder of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer, and other similar deaths of unarmed African-American men and women (e.g., Breonna Taylor) at the hands of police officers.
That being said, I’m neither suggesting nor implying that the protests or bail reform efforts, caused an increase in homicide. That’s too simplistic.
But what explains the rise of murder, a type of crime where the statistics are the most reliable?
Here are six possible reasons why this increase might have occurred.
To begin with, there may be more availability of guns on the street. Not only is there data to support the increase in gun sales, but some commentators have suggested that a certain percentage of the population used their stimulus check to purchase guns. Keep in mind that these sales were disproportionately from fearful white middle class people who live in the suburbs.
Alternatively, the guns that were used in homicides may be of better quality. Many of the guns on the street are of low quality, typically used to threaten a potential victim of a robbery and not necessarily because it will be fired. By default, brand new guns, on the other hand, are of better quality.
Additionally, another reason why homicides may have increased in 2020 is that people using the guns have become better skilled at using them. Shooters may have had more time on their hands to improve their ability to use these weapons.
Moreover, the situations in which guns are used may have increased, thus there may have more domestic violence (e.g.., families living in close proximity for longer periods of time), gang activity, including competition for scarce markets.
Another possible reason for the spike in homicides is that first responders, especially EMTs may have been slower to get to gun-shot victims. Why? They were tied up with COVID-19 related patients, and thus the times between dispatch and arrival on the scene may have been slower. Thus, a certain percentage of victims of shootings may have died because of slower response times. A similar situation may have occurred in the emergency departments of our hospitals that were crowded with COVID-19 patients.
Finally, a decrease in trust in the criminal justice system in general, and police in particular to “serve and protect” may have pushed some members of the public to handle their disputes with others on their own and resort to gun violence.
Regardless these are all speculations regarding the increase in the murder rate in 2020. Until we get a better handle on who the shooters and victims are, especially finding out why they decided to pull the trigger, we will probably not really know for sure why there was an increase last year.
Title of photo: Crime Scene Patrol Cars
Photographer: F. Muhammad
Documenting and analyzing Graffiti and Street Art in connection with COVID-19
/by Jeffrey Ian RossAlmost every major political or social development seems to inspire individuals to write graffiti or street art.
Over the past two years, a considerable amount of graffiti and street art has been produced in connection with the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, the Black Lives Movement, protests against racist memorials and monuments, and dissatisfaction with former President Trump, his family and administration, and with similar right-wing populist leaders throughout the world (e.g., Bolsonaro).
The public has also witnessed graffiti and street art in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic that has raged throughout the world for the past year-and-a-half. Many of us have seen the images of graffiti and street art connected to the pandemic in the news media, in particular print media (especially newspapers and magazines) and via social media websites like Instagram.
Why has this occurred? In part, there has been an increased availability of urban public space for graffiti writers and street artists to do their work as many retail businesses temporarily or permanently closed, and the windows of their shops have been covered by plywood, thus providing more available canvasses. Even the temporary shelters that many restaurants have erected on sidewalks and streets have been hit by taggers. In NYC alone, in 2019 the city cut its budget in graffiti and street art eradication.
Short of a full accounting of COVID-19 graffiti and street art, researchers Heather Shirey & David Todd Lawrence are trying to achieve, there are a number of recurrent themes that these Coronavirus images play on like fear, frustration, hope, mourning, solidarity, and thanks to front line health care workers like doctors and nurses.
Many of the images are of people, some of them iconic (e.g., Bill Gates, Vincent Van Gough, Steve Jobs, etc.) wearing face masks, protective gloves or other assorted Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). A smattering of graffiti and street art images have superman logos painted on them. Other pieces involve a cataloguing of previous pandemics in order to contextualize the current one that we are experiencing. Some of the work approaching street art have sheets draped as masks in front of murals, street art or graffiti depicting images of people. Otherwise pieces are monochromatic, while others are multicolored.
Most of the content about graffiti and street art and COVID produced by the news media mainly contain images. Few of them provide analyses. But recent scholarship is changing all this. There are now a handful of interesting pieces of scholarship, published in scholarly journals like Crime, Media, Culture, the Nuart Journal, and Visual Studies, that are addressing the graffiti and street art of COVID.
It is through this kind of scholarly analysis that we will have a deeper and richer understanding of the graffiti and street art produced during this time period.
Photo Credit
Photographer: duncan
Title: Coronavirus graffiti, Leake Street