Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration

Chapter 1 examines the roots of mass incarceration and the problem of reentry. A pivotal moment occurred in 1970, when President Richard Nixon declared a “war on crime” in his State of the Union address. Before this time, criminal justice policy was largely under the purview of localities and states. Nixon framed crime as a matter of national concern that required a coordinated effort to combat. His call for law and order resonated with many Americans, who worried about the protests and disorder of the 1960s. As a result, criminal justice became more punitive in the 1970s. “Tough on crime” policies fueled the growth of the criminal justice system, including prisons. The number of convicts grew, as did the number of ex-offenders. Cities and states began struggling with recidivism and prisoner reentry. The problems of mass incarceration are well known, but those of prisoner reentry have largely been overlooked in the scholarly literature. By tracing the origins of mass incarceration, Pager sheds light on the varied consequences of prisoner reentry on America’s social fabric.

The Prison Boom

This section traces the origins of mass incarceration in the US to the early 1970s, primarily through statistics from the Bureau of Justice. Studies show that the size of the American prison population was stable for much of the 20th century, with approximately 100 inmates per 100,000 residents. However, the rate doubled between 1972 and 1984 and again between 1984 and 1994. The incarceration rate continued to climb through the 1990s, reaching 486 inmates per 100,000 residents by 2004. By the turn of the century, there were over 2 million incarcerated individuals in the US, as well as 4.9 million ex-offenders on probation or parole (11).

Pager provides visual aids to help readers understand this data. On page 12, for example, she charts the incarceration rate from 1925 to 2004, showing a steep rise starting in the 1970s. On page 13, she plots incarceration rates alongside violent crime and property crime rates from 1973 to 2004. The chart shows an irregular relationship between crime and incarceration: The former remained steady in the 1980s, while the latter rose dramatically. By contrast, crime rates fell in the 1990s, while incarceration rates rose.

Mass incarceration is widely supported in the US, but the policy is not universally embraced. Another of the book’s major themes is introduced here: Criminal Justice Reform in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Critics and anti-carceral activists argue that mass incarceration has done little to reduce crime, claiming that economic changes, shifts in demographics, improved policing, and other social trends better explain decreasing crime rates. Critics further contend that incarceration may be effective for serious and chronic offenders, but that the expense of building, maintaining, and staffing prisons is not commensurate with the small gains in crime reduction. Mass incarceration, moreover, weakens family and professional ties, which fuels recidivism.

Pager does not aim to resolve debates about the effectiveness of incarceration compared to other methods of crime reduction. Instead, she focuses on the long-term consequences of incarceration outside prison walls. The ex-offender population is six times that of the inmate population (14); attending to reentry is thus critical to safeguarding the public, as well as assessing and reforming crime policy.

Pager demonstrates that incarceration is not simply a response to crime. Crime rates have fluctuated since the 1970s, yet incarceration rates have consistently increased. Studies link rising incarceration rates to shifts in crime control policies, namely, the increased likelihood of incarceration after arrest and longer sentences. Parole violations also account for growing incarceration rates. For Pager, the disconnect between crime policy and actual crime rates speaks to a drastic shift in crime policies: “Whereas prison was once seen as a last resort for offenders, it now represents one of the dominant strategies for dealing with the problems of crime and social disorder” (15). As such, prison is no longer a punishment for a crime, but rather an indictment of a person altogether; Someone who has been in prison is branded a criminal forever, and they are treated worse because they are presumed to be inherently immoral.

From Rehabilitation to Retribution

The 1970s marked a shift in crime policy, from rehabilitation to retribution. Authorities grew dissatisfied with ineffective attempts at rehabilitating offenders through counseling, education, and job training. Thus, they increasingly turned to containment and punishment to address crime. The deemphasis on rehabilitation and growth emphasizes Pager’s theme of morality and incarceration; prisoners are presumed to be inherently bad, and rehabilitation is therefore a waste of time.

The Crisis of Indeterminate Sentencing

Indeterminate sentencing practices were common throughout the 20th century. Judges meted out open-ended sentences, each with a minimum and a maximum, as a way of encouraging good behavior inside prisons. Conservative critics, however, argued that indeterminate sentencing gave judges and parole boards too much leniency. Liberals also opposed indeterminate sentencing because of its lack of transparency. By the late 1990s, all 50 states replaced indeterminate sentencing with determinate sentencing structures that imposed fixed terms for specific crimes. This shift led to stricter punishments, even for low-level and first-time offenders, most of whom would have received probation under the old model. Statistics show that the average sentence increased by about 40% between the 1980s and the late 1990s (17).

A Formalization of Moral Order

Conservative politicians and intellectuals reframed public discourse on morality throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This new view presented crime as a choice rather than the product of poverty, abuse, or other social factors: “Crime was viewed not as an indicator of the failings of a social system but as a symptom of moral corruption” (17). The breakdown of the family unit, drug use, and social disorganization were seen as the root causes of urban crime, while the poor were cast as unredeemable criminals. The purpose of punishment changed in this context: In addition to preserving public safety, incarceration was seen as a means of preserving the moral order and protecting the public from social disorder.

The war on drugs began during this new regime. Launched by President Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980s, the war on drugs led to a sharp increase in drug convictions, particularly in Black communities, even though data shows that most drug users are white (20). The statistics are sobering:

‘Between 1983 and 1997, the number of African Americans admitted to prison for drug offenses increased more than twenty-six-fold, relative to a sevenfold increase for whites …By 2001, there were more than twice as many African Americans as whites in state prison for drug offenses’ (20).

Corrections budgets ballooned as prisons became the dominant way of dealing with drug problems and other forms of social disorder, such as homelessness and mental illness.

The Era of Prisoner Reentry

The problem of reentry from prison to society became more pressing with mass incarceration. The number of ex-offenders reentering society grew eightfold between 1970 and 2003 (22). Reabsorption resources were stretched thin in the face of this growth. Parole officers tasked with helping ex-offenders saw their caseloads rise and budgets slashed. The state’s capacity to regulate ex-offenders declined significantly. Parole officers used to help former convicts find work, housing, and drug treatment after their release. Today, parolees spend an average of fifteen minutes with their parole officers once or twice per month (24). Government restrictions further hinder prisoner reentry. Ex-offenders are banned from public housing, cannot work in the public sector, and only have limited access to federal loans for higher education. These restrictions, combined with poor oversight by parole officers, exacerbate recidivism problems.

Absorbing Returning Prisoners

Since the budgets of public institutions have been reduced, the burden of reentry is borne largely by families and communities. Studies show that strong personal ties lead to better outcomes for ex-offenders (25). Longer sentences weaken family and community bonds, making reentry more difficult. Impoverished neighborhoods with high unemployment rates and single-parent households are most affected by high incarceration, hindering the reentry process. Lacking institutional, community, and family support, many ex-offenders end up unemployed and homeless, two factors strongly linked to recidivism.

A Case of Market Failure?

Pager argues that supporting ex-offenders is in the public interest. Stable employment allows ex-offenders to become self-sufficient, which gives them less reason to engage in crime and saves taxpayers the cost of supporting them in prison. However, public interest does not align with market forces. Individual employers have little incentive to hire ex-offenders because they bear the costs of workplace theft and violence, as well as high employee turnover rates. Many employers thus refuse to hire ex-offenders, even when they need employees. Market forces cannot override employer preferences and biases that prevent ex-offenders from finding and keeping jobs. Understanding what drives employers, then, is a critical step in developing reentry policies. Pager is setting the stage here to discuss critical justice reform more widely.