Young People, Shadow Carceral Innovations, and the Reproduction of Inequality

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The rate of detention for juveniles in the United States (US) is half what it was 20 years ago, and arrest rates have declined as well. Scholars, however, have illuminated more subtle processes of criminalization, such as through school disciplinary practices and civil penalties for low-level infractions in the community. Recognizing the presence and importance of such “shadow measures” helps us to understand how the carceral state penetrates deeper into the lives of (young) people, even in the midst of emerging reforms that would seem to dull the sharpest edges of the US criminal justice system. In this article, we delineate some of the ways that “shadow measures” help to sustain and legitimate deep economic, social, and justice system inequalities in the present-day US. Specifically, we describe how several “shadow carceral innovations” in the school and community mark some young people as “dangerous,” “high-risk,” or “unsafe,” and show how these experiences are measured and judged across a variety of institutions. Ultimately, we argue that these “shadow measures” structure the day-to-day lives of youth outside the workforce and the cellblock, functioning as a key mechanism for maintaining inequality in the second decade of this century.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    When a significant proportion of a neighborhood’s population is (or has been) under some form of correctional control, the resource structure within the community itself can become strained further. The undereducation and unemployment of some community members can weaken the economic base of all members, thus reinforcing the oppressive conditions that correlate so strongly with incarceration in the first place.

References

  1. Adams, E. B., Chen, E. Y., & Chapman, R. (2017). Erasing the mark of a criminal past: Ex-offenders’ expectations and experiences with record clearance. Punishment and Society,19(1), 23–52.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Bar Association. (2012). Juvenile collateral consequences project. American Bar Association. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from http://www.beforeyouplead.com.

  4. American Bar Association. (2013). National inventory of the collateral consequences of conviction. American Bar Association. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org.

  5. Anderson, M. (2016). Who relies on public transit in the U.S. Pew Research Center. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-on-public-transit-in-the-u-s/.

  6. Auyero, J. (2015). Invisible in Austin: Life and labor in an American city. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bauman, T. (2014). No safe place: The criminalization of homelessness in US cities. Washington, DC: National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place.

  8. Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2008). Dealing with disorder: Social control in the post-industrial city. Theoretical Criminology,12(1), 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beckett, K., & Murakawa, N. (2012). Mapping the shadow carceral state: Toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theoretical Criminology,16(2), 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beckett, K., & Western, B. (2001). Governing social marginality: Welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy. Punishment and Society,3(1), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brownstein, R. (2009). Pushed out. Teaching Tolerance,36, 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  12. California Department of Education. (2019). Truancy. State of California. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ai/tr/.

  13. Campuzano-Santamaria, R. (2016). Reconsidering the criminality of fare evasion: Implementation practices in California. Western Center on Law and Poverty. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/RCAMPUZANO_Fare-Evasion.pdf.

  14. Carmichael, D., Whittan, G., & Voloudakis, M. (2005). The public policy research institute, study of minority over-representation in the Texas juvenile justice system, final report. Texas A&M University. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb8a/a26185807c5bdef68f54b34f7f9b81aa1306.pdf.

  15. Chapman, B. (2018). NYC public school suspensions rose up in the 2017-18 school year in spike of crime and disruption, after years of declines. 31 October, Daily News. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-metro-school-suspensions-rise-in-2017-18-school-year-20181031-story.html.

  16. Colorado Legislative Council Staff. (2014). Class 1 petty offenses. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/14%20PETTY%20Class1.pdf.

  17. Cortez, A., & Cortez, D. (2009). Disciplinary alternative education programs in Texas. Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from http://www.idra.org/images/stories/IDRA%20DAEP%20Policy%20Update%20March%202009.pdf.

  18. Cox, A. (2018). Trapped in a vice: The consequences of confinement for young people. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cox, A. (2019). Challenging the logics of reformism and humanism in juvenile justice reform rhetoric. Critical Criminology: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09474-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Crawford, A. (2009). Governing through anti-social behaviour: Regulatory challenges to criminal justice. The British Journal of Criminology,49(6), 810–831.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Currie, E. (1997). Market, crime and community: Toward a mid-range theory of post-industrial violence. Theoretical Criminology,1(2), 147–172.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Currie, E. (2013). Consciousness, solidarity and hope as prevention and rehabilitation. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy,2(2), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Currie, E. (2016). The roots of danger: Violent crime in global perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dycus, J. (2009). Missing the mark: Alternative schools in the state of Mississippi. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://www.aclu.org/report/missing-mark-alternative-schools-state-mississippi.

  25. Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., & Plotkin, M. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center and Public Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2017). 2015 Crime in the United States. US Department of Justice. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43.

  27. Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology,30(4), 449–474.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Feierman, J., Goldstein, N., Haney-Caron. E., & Fairfax Columbo, J. (2016). Debtor’s prison for kids? Fines and fees in the juvenile justice system. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://debtorsprison.jlc.org/documents/JLC-Debtors-Prison.pdf.

  29. Ferrell, J. (2018). Drift: Illicit mobility and uncertain knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Foley, R. M., & Pang, L. Z. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student characteristics. The High School Journal,89(3), 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Georgia Department of Education. (2019). Student attendance protocol. State of Georgia. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Policy/Lists/Attendance/Attachments/55/660_StdAttnProt.pdf.

  32. Georgia Legislature. (2017a). O.C.G.A. § 16-11-36 Offenses Against Public Order.

  33. Georgia Legislature. (2017b). O.C.G.A. § 17-10-3 Procedure for Sentencing and Imposition of Punishment.

  34. Giroux, H. A. (2015). Against the terror of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goddard, T., & Myers, R. (2017). Against evidence-based oppression: Marginalized youth and the politics of risk-based assessment and intervention. Theoretical Criminology,21(2), 151–167.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Goddard, T., & Myers, R. (2018). Youth, community and the struggle for social justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Goff, M. (2016). African American girls and the school-to-prison pipeline: Who are our sisters’ keepers? Urban Wire, 25 May. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/african-american-girls-and-school-prison-pipeline-who-are-our-sisters-keepers.

  38. Goshe, S. (2019). How contemporary rehabilitation fails youth and sabotages the American juvenile justice system: A critique and call for change. Critical Criminology: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09473-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Guy, L. S., Nelson, R. J., Fusco-Morin, S. L., et al. (2014). What do juvenile probation officers think of using the SAVRY and YLS/CMI for case management, and do they use the instruments properly? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,13(3), 227–241.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hall, S., Winlow, S., & Ancrum, C. (2008). Criminal identities and consumer culture: Crime, exclusion and the new culture of narcissism. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2016). A conceptual kaleidoscope: Contemplating “dynamic structural risk” and an uncoupling of risk from need. Psychology, Crime and Law,22(1–2), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) (2010). Indiana Risk Assessment System. https://mycourts.in.gov/RA/Documents/Adult/Community%20Supervision%20Interview%20Guide.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2019.

  44. Irwin-Rogers, K. (2019). Drug prohibition, consumer capitalism and the rise of social media: A toxic trap for young people. Critical Criminology: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09476-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaufman, N., Kaiser, J., & Rumpf, C. (2018). Beyond punishment: The penal state’s interventionist, covert, and negligent modalities of control. Law and Social Inquiry,43(2), 468–495.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kentucky Legislature. (2017a). Kentucky Revised Statute § 159.051. No Pass/No Drive.

  47. Kentucky Legislature. (2017b). Kentucky Revised Statute § 159.990. Penalties.

  48. Kim, J., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Rethinking alternative education to break the cycle of educational inequality and inequity. Journal of Educational Research,101(4), 207–219.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kupchik, A. (2016). The real school safety problem: The long-term consequences of harsh school punishment. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kwon, S. A. (2013). Uncivil youth: Race, activism, and affirmative governmentality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lloyd, A. (2018). The harms of work: An ultra-realist account of the service economy. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lynch, M. (2012). Theorizing the role of the “war on drugs” in US punishment. Theoretical Criminology,16(2), 175–199.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2003). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. McCarty Carino, M. (2017). Feds investigating Metro fare enforcement after discrimination complaint. 89.3 KPCC, 19 January. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.scpr.org/news/2017/01/19/68285/feds-investigating-metro-fare-enforcement-after-di/.

  56. McKinley Jr., J. C. (2017). For Manhattan fare beaters, one-way ticket to court may be over. The New York Times, 30 June. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/nyregion/subway-fare-beating-new-york.html.

  57. Mesinas, A. M. (2017). Students taking action in Los Angeles schools: An ethnographic case study of student activism in the United States. In S. Pickard & J. Bessant (Eds.), Young people re-generating politics in times of crises (pp. 41–57). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Miller, R. J., & Stuart, F. (2017). Carceral citizenship: Race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology,21(4), 532–548.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Mooney, H., & Leighton, P. (2019). Troubled affluent youth’s experiences in a therapeutic boarding school: The elite arm of the youth control complex and its implications for youth justice. Critical Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09466-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Indicator 20: Safety and security measures taken by public schools. Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/ind_20.asp.

  61. Nelson, L., & Lind, D. (2015). The school to prison pipeline, explained. Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/8775.

  62. New York State Legislature. (2017). NY Penal Law § 240.35. Loitering.

  63. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2017). Statistical briefing book. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05279.

  64. Ohio Legislature. (2017). House Bill 410. 131st General Assembly.

  65. Paddock, B., & Ryley, S. (2014) Exclusive, fare evasion arrests surge in recent years, making it among city’s top offenses leading to jail: Daily News analysis. New York Daily News, 18 August. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/fare-evasion-arrests-surge-years-article-1.1906667.

  66. Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Pesta, R. (2018). Labeling and the differential impact of school discipline on negative life outcomes: Assessing ethno-racial variation in the school-to-prison pipeline. Crime and Delinquency,64(11), 1489–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Puzzanchera, C., & Kang, W. (2014). Easy access to FBI arrest statistics: 1994–2011. In OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr.

  69. Regional Transport District (RTD). (2017). Fare Evasion. Denver, CO: Regional Transport District. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.rtd-denver.com/FareEvasion.shtml.

  70. Reyes, A. (2006). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer?. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Rocque, M., & Snellings, Q. (2018). The new disciplinology: Research, theory, and remaining puzzles on the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Criminal Justice,59, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sapp, D., & Blasi, J. (2012). Counterproductive and wasteful: Los Angeles’ daytime curfew pushes students away from school and diverts resources away from real community safety. Los Angeles, CA: ACLU of Southern California, Public Counsel Law Center, and Community Rights Campaign.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Schept, J., Wall, T., & Brisman, A. (2015). Building, staffing and insulating: An architecture of criminological complicity in the school-to-prison pipeline. Social Justice,41(4), 96–115.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Schmitt, A. (2017). Why cities are starting to decriminalize fare evasion. Streets Blog USA, 8 March. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/03/08/why-cities-are-starting-to-decriminalize-fare-evasion/.

  75. Selman, K. J. (2017). Imprisoning ‘those’ kids: Neoliberal logics and the disciplinary alternative school. Youth Justice,17(3), 213–231.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Semuels, A. (2016). No driver’s license, no job. The Atlantic, 15 June. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/no-drivers-license-no-job/486653/.

  77. Shannon, S. K. S., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017). The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography,54(5), 1795–1818.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Siddiqui, F. (2017). D.C. Council bill would decriminalize Metro fare evasion. The Washington Post, 11 July. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/07/11/d-c-council-bill-would-decriminalize-metro-fare-evasion/?utm_term=.ca3af303e0a4.

  79. Simmons, L. (2016). The prison school: Educational inequality and school discipline in the age of mass incarceration. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Stevens, W. D., Sartain, L., Allensworth, E. M., & Levenstein, R. (2015). Discipline practices in Chicago schools: Trends in the use of suspensions and arrests. The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Discipline%20Report.pdf.

  83. Stupar, J. M. (2015). Gangsta’s paradise? How Chicago’s antigang loitering ordinance punishes status instead of behavior. DePaul Law Review,64(3), 945–984.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Sykes, B. L., Piquero, R., Giovano, J. P., & Pittman, N. (2015). The school-to-prison pipeline in America, 1972–2012. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Oxford handbooks online in criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2018) Counts of DAEP and JJAEP placement reason types by race/ethnicity and gender: PEIMS 20172018 data. Retrieved March 17, 2019 from https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&_program=adhoc.download_static_DAG_summary.sas&district=&agg_level=STATE&referrer=Download_State_DAG_Summaries.html&test_flag=&_debug=0&school_yr=18&report=02&report_type=html&Download_State_Summary=Next.

  86. Thompson, C. (2017). In NY town, parents may do time if their child does crime. US News,13 October. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2017-10-13/in-ny-town-parents-may-do-time-if-their-child-does-crime.

  87. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  88. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute. (2015). Drivers License Issues and Recommendations. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/2015/DriversIssuesJune2015.pdf.

  89. U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Creating safe and drug-free schools: An action guide. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/safescho.pdf.

  90. van Eijk, G. (2016). Socioeconomic marginality in sentencing: The built-in bias in risk assessment tools and the reproduction of social inequality. Punishment and Society,19(4), 463–481.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Vanderhaar, J. E., Muñoz, M., & Petrosko, J. (2015). Reconsidering the alternatives: The relationship between suspension, disciplinary alternative school placement, subsequent juvenile detention, and the salience of race. Journal of Applied Research on Children,2(5), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wakefield, S., & Uggen, C. (2010). Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology,36, 387–406.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Weissman, M. (2014). Prelude to prison: Student perceptions on school suspension. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Weissman, M., & NaPier, E. (2015). Education suspended: The use of high school disciplinary records in college admission. Brooklyn, NY: Center for Community Alternatives. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/EducationSuspended_ExecSumm.pdf.

  96. Werth, R. (2019). Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence-based” penal techniques. Sociology Compass,13, e12659.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2005). Black-white wage inequality, employment, and incarceration. American Journal of Sociology,111(2), 553–578.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Wisconsin COMPAS. (2011). Risk assessment. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2702103-Sample-Risk-Assessment-COMPAS-CORE.html.

  99. Woolard, A. (2017). Suspended progress 2017: An update on the state of exclusionary discipline in Virginia’s public schools. Legal Aid Justice Center. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Suspended-Progress-2017.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaitlyn J. Selman.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Selman, K.J., Myers, R. & Goddard, T. Young People, Shadow Carceral Innovations, and the Reproduction of Inequality. Crit Crim 27, 527–542 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09468-2

Download citation