In this first podcast, Mary (M.E.) Martin and Eva Geicht introduce Black Feminism, its history within the United States movements with its connections to the abolition movements, as well as a handful of the many influential Black feminists such as Sojourner Truth, Maya Angelou, Audre Lorde, Ida B. Wells, and Black civil rights/feminists groups whose activism and works influenced modern Black feminism. With its connections within Anti-Slavery movements and Women's Rights Liberation movements in the mid-19th century, Black Feminism emerged as a response to both as Women's Rights movements historically excluded Black women and refused to recognize the intersecting parts of gender and race through what is now described as "White Feminism." What later became known as Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, helped to recognize the embodied experiences of Black women by showing how discrimination around gender, race, and class work in tandem to systemically oppress Black women.

In respect to this topic, it must be said that the speakers of this podcast are two white women, who have been given the privilege and the opportunity to have this platform to be able to speak about Black feminism. Though it is an honor to bring light to such an important history that is often forgotten, the speakers encourage everyone who listens to read the works of Black feminists, learn more about the history of Black women and Black feminism in the United States and Europe, and most importantly: Listen to Black women.

We would also like to thank Lara Andres and Steve Santos for their amazing research, which helped make this podcast possible.

The second podcast discusses Women’s Movements and Black Feminism in the United States and Europe. Ennedith and Jana talk through the Waves of Feminism and the social transformation during those periods. Thanks to our researcher, Afsaneh, we have learned that Women’s Movements have lacked intersectionality as white, middle-class, educated women have predominantly dominated the narrative.

It is important to note that the speakers and researchers are of White/German, Xicana/Latina, and Iranian/Muslim descent. When discussing intersectionality, the criticism does originate from some lived experiences but not to the full extent when discussing Black Feminism. It is important that we uplift and support Black voices, perspectives, and work; in this case, when looking at Black Feminism and its practice. As mentioned in the first podcast, we encourage everyone to listen to Black women and learn about Black Feminism on a global basis.

The Waves of Feminism provide a comprehensive timeline of Women’s Movements and how those demands began to shift; there are also evident differences between the United States and Europe. The First Wave of Feminism was during the mid 19th century to the early 20th century, where women advocated for expanding legal rights, explicitly voting. The Second Wave of Feminism was between the 1960s and 1970s, where discussion regarding social equality and bodily autonomy was prominent. It was not until the Third Wave of Feminism where intersectionality became foundational for feminist theory; this is the era where Black women’s contributions, such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, bell hooks, and Alice Walker, are acknowledged. There is speculation that the Fourth Wave of Feminism started in the 2010s, yet that could be debatable. Black Feminism is especially critical for the recent events of ongoing protests and coalitions regarding Black Lives Matter. Black feminist has always been at the forefront of acknowledging the systematic oppression placed at the intersections of race, class, and gender.

In this third podcast, our speakers Megan and Eva discuss the influence of people of color from the Gay and Queer community. Melanie, the podcast researcher, therefore provides information about Marsha P. Johnson.

Marsha P. Johnson, an activist, drag queen, and transwoman, is notable for influence in the Stonewall Riots, the most critical event for the fight for Gay and Queer rights. The topic is essential for the Black Lives Matter movement because there is a valuable connection between people of color and the Gay/Queer movement. Also, in the gay and queer movement, the Stonewall Riots can be marked as an event that forced people from marginalized communities to work together and advocate for better laws and society. Groups endured a significant amount of police violence and brutality when mobilizing. As a result of these experiences, BIPOC and the Queer community establish coalitions and relationships. Within the Queer movement itself, the importance of Marsha P. Johnson shifts the conversation to include BIPOC and Trans peoples within this narrative.

by Avery Bachman-Rhodes

Carceral State – a society or government that is dependent or based fundamentally on the incarceration of persons deemed disposable.

Prison Industrial Complex – the running of prisons and jails like businesses, i.e., with the purpose of making money as opposed to the rehabilitation of people who break the law.

The terms ‘carceral state’ and ‘prison industrial complex’ are important to both define and explore because the structures they represent drastically influence the societies in which they operate. Both of these terms convey that the system of incarceration is intimately tied to the idea that some lives have less value than others and that those lives can be exploited for financial gain. Ruby Tapia, a University of Michigan Professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies asserts that the carceral state includes two things: 1) the physical structures and buildings of the criminal justice system and 2) a society’s fundamental perspectives and practices being rooted in the idea that jailing is necessary response to the transgression of both laws and social norms.[1] Merriam-Webster quotes Angela Davis as saying that the phrase ‘prison industrial complex’ was created “to contest prevailing beliefs that increased levels of crime were the root cause of mounting prison populations. Instead, [scholars and activists] argue, prison construction and the attendant drive to fill these new structures with human bodies have been driven by ideologies of racism and the pursuit of profit.”[2] It is vital to understand what the terms ‘carceral state’ and ‘prison industrial complex’ mean and what systems they describe because those systems have a monumental impact on the lives and safety of people, both those within prisons and outside them.

Works Cited:
Merriam-Webster. “Prison industrial complex.” Accessed April 9, 2021.

Tapia, Ruby. “What is the Carceral State?” Filmed October 2018 at the University of Michigan,

MI. Video, 0:22.

[1]Ruby Tapia, “What is the Carceral State?” filmed October 2018 at the University of Michigan, MI, video, 0:22, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7ab5f5c3fbca46c38f0b2496bcaa5ab0

[2] “prison industrial complex,” Merriam-Webster, accessed April 9, 2021, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prison%20industrial%20complex

by Jaclyn Gallegos

African Americans and other people of color are overrepresented in the US prison system mainly because it has become a source of income. The US Prison System is essentially an extension of slavery. Fornili explains that “the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.”[1] This exception means incarceration allows for people to be forced to work for free. One example of this is La’Shawn Yvonne Littrice, who writes of her time working in prison where she “was given a prison job at $0.23 per hour, and [she] was told that [she] will work no matter what, with complete disregard for [her] health or well-being.”[2] There are countless others like Littrice who are “imprisoned for a crime [and] then work to make the same prison that has [them] incarcerated billions of dollars.”[3] With the abolition of slavery and plantations, a new economic system was needed, which gave the perfect circumstances for the creation of the modern carceral system. Private prisons exacerbate the inequality of the US carceral system because they are in the business for personal financial gain, rather than rehabilitation of inmates. Building on Littrice’s story, “a steady flow of an adequate number of inmates means huge profits for privatized prison corporations.”[4] Private prisons are a capitalistic endeavor that place more value on income, than human life. With the goal being to increase income, “more people [are jailed] for longer than necessary, because it keeps someone’s balance sheet healthy.”[5] The greed of prisons and their subsequent need for inmates has become the driving force behind the over-incarceration of people of color, while institutionalized racism has cleared the path to do so.  The large increase in disproportionality of incarceration skyrocketed beginning in 1971 when “President Nixon [...] declared a War on Drugs, after campaigning for the presidency using a ‘Southern Strategy’ that favored Southern racism and opposed civil rights.”[6] As Fornili explains, the “disenfranchisement and loss of the ability to vote […] is responsible for rolling back the structural gains of the civil rights movement.”[7] These rollbacks allow African American men to be disproportionately targeted, profiled, and policed, which leads to extremely high incarceration rates.[8] The LSE Undergraduate Political Review explains that “crime is everywhere, but police only find it where they’re looking.”[9] Looking at statistics from the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Figure 1, it appears that people of color are not   overrepresented, but Harris explains how this can be misleading because Hispanics are racially classified as white.[10][11] To put this into perspective, the ethnicity demographics presented in Figure 2 need to be considered. 

Figure 2 represents inmate ethnicity.[12] Since the BOP classifies Hispanics as racially white, take the 87,386 white inmates and subtract the 45,553 inmates who identify as Hispanic. This means that African Americans are the largest group in prison with 58,490 people incarcerated. Hispanics are the second with 45,553 and Whites are now the third with 41,833. Prior to doing this math, the BOPs data does not show any clear overrepresentation, however, after analyzing it under this scope, it is obvious that people of color are disproportionately incarcerated. Harris summarizes, “the overall picture is one of a low white representation, a high black representation, and a somewhat moderate Hispanic representation at each stage of the criminal justice system.”[13]

To further show the overrepresentation of people of color, here are some statistics to help put it into perspective. The LSE Undergraduate Political Review shows that illegal drug use is the same in white and black men, however, “black men are five times as likely to be arrested for a drug offense.”[14] Fornili also presents very compelling data stating, “African Americans are more than twice as likely as Whites to be arrested in a traffic stop, three times as likely to have force used against them, nine times more likely to be stopped by police on the street, twice as likely to file citizen complaints about police misconduct, and, depending on the locality, several times more likely to be injured during a police encounter or become the victim of a fatal shooting by police.”[15] It is quite clear that there is a disproportionate amount of overrepresentation and targeting of people of color in the carceral system. 

Institutional racism has allowed for this overrepresentation of people of color in the carceral system by creating a cycle so it can continue for generations. This cycle allows for a continual flow of inmates and simultaneously a workforce to continue the monetary flow into prisons. A starting point for this cycle can be with the school-to-prison pipeline. The ACLU defines this as “a […] national trend wherein children are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.”[16] This pipeline exists because of “inadequate resources in public schools.”[17] As the LSE Undergraduate Political Review shows, “inequality is a strong explanatory factor of over incarceration: school failure, peer influence, living in poor areas, drug use and joblessness.”[18] People of color face severe inequality in all these areas and the school-to-prison pipeline is a direct result of this. Children are put into a situation that hinders their success. Public schools follow the footsteps of the previously mentioned institutions and continue to target children of color. There is a clear connection between public schools and prisons in the school-to-prison pipeline. Students of color funnel into prisons to serve as their next workforce. By better funding public schools and addressing these disparities, the pipeline can be halted, however, this would go against private prisons and their stockholders. 

People of color are overrepresented in the carceral system because prisons are seen as economic entities. Events dating back to the 70s have made it easier to incarcerate people of color and take away their rights, thus establishing a cycle. These instances of institutionalized racism have cleared all obstacles, making it easier to disproportionately target African Americans and other people of color. Greed and racism are the direct causes for the school-to-prison pipeline. This pipeline allows the cycle to continue because it provides a continual flow of people of color into prisons to continue as the workforce. Ultimately, this flow of people, who disproportionately are people of color, are incarcerated in order to economically benefit private prisons and their supporters.

Works cited: 

ACLU. “School-to-Prison Pipeline.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline

Harris, Casey T., Darrell Steffenmeier, Jeffery T. Ulmer, Noah Painter-Davis. “Are Blacks and Hispanics Disproportionately Incarcerated Relative to Their Arrests? Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality Between Arrest and Incarceration.” Race and Social Problems (2009). DOI 10.1007/s12552-009-9019-x. 

Howarth, Eponine. “Overrepresentation in Criminal Justice Systems.” LSE Undergraduate Political Review (2018). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2018/01/25/overrepresentation-in-criminal-justice-systems/

“Inmate Race and Inmate Ethnicity.” Federal Bureau of Prisons (2021). https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_age.jsp

Littrice, La’Shawn Yvonne. “The Truth about a Lie: The Criminal Justice System, is it Just?” American Journal of Community Psychology (2021). DOI 10.1002/ajcp.12509. 

Smith Fornili, Katherine. “Racialized Mass Incarceration and the War on Drugs.” Journal of Addictions Nursing (2018). DOI 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000215.

[1] Smith Fornili, Katherine. “Racialized Mass Incarceration and the War on Drugs.” Journal of Addictions Nursing (2018), 71.

[2]Littrice, La’Shawn Yvonne. “The Truth about a Lie: The Criminal Justice System, is it Just?” American Journal of Community Psychology (2021), 181.

[3] Littrice, La’Shawn Yvonne. “The Truth about a Lie: The Criminal Justice System, is it Just?”, 181.

[4] Smith Fornili, Katherine. “Racialized Mass Incarceration and the War on Drugs.”, 68.

[5] Ibid, 68.

[6] Smith Fornili, Katherine. “Racialized Mass Incarceration and the War on Drugs.”, 65.

[7] Ibid, 69.

[8] Howarth, Eponine. “Overrepresentation in Criminal Justice Systems.” LSE Undergraduate Political Review (2018).

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Inmate Race and Inmate Ethnicity.” Federal Bureau of Prisons (2021).

[11] Harris, Casey T., Darrell Steffenmeier, Jeffery T. Ulmer, Noah Painter-Davis. “Are Blacks and Hispanics Disproportionately Incarcerated Relative to Their Arrests? Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality Between Arrest and Incarceration.” Race and Social Problems (2009), 4.

[12] “Inmate Race and Inmate Ethnicity.”

[13] Harris, Casey T.,“Are Blacks and Hispanics Disproportionately Incarcerated Relative to Their Arrests? Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality Between Arrest and Incarceration,” 12.

[14] Howarth, Eponine. “Overrepresentation in Criminal Justice Systems.”

[15] Smith Fornili, Katherine. “Racialized Mass Incarceration and the War on Drugs.”, 67.

[16] ACLU. “School-to-Prison Pipeline.” American Civil Liberties Union.

[17] ACLU. “School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

[18] Howarth, Eponine. “Overrepresentation in Criminal Justice Systems.”

To understand how it came to what is referred to as the prison-industrial complex, it is necessary to point out some legislative moments and measures that not only brought about increased incarceration rates, but also changed how sentenced people are treated in prison. Each of these steps made the successive ones possible and increasingly justifiable in the eyes of their makers and initiators. Since Richard Nixon declared the ‘war on drugs,’ increased strictness in sentencing laws emerged first in the wake of the increased criminalization of drug (ab-)use[1]. Namely, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which, on the surface, was designed to increase substance regulation. Ultimately, it opened the door for not only criminalizing the use of certain substances but also their users – yet these policies alone are only part of the problem[2].

To keep up with an increasing prison population, private prisons did not only increase in numbers, but their owners and advocates began lobbying. Several acts – The Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program as well as the Prison-Industries Act – and organizations – namely the American Legislative Exchange Council – were initiated and founded in the late 70s[3]. Channeling the connection between business interests and conservative politicians, they all aimed at allowing for the ‘employment’ of prison populations as workforce in private prisons, creating labor in federal and state prisons that mimicked the private sector, and allowing for prison-produced goods to be shipped across state-borders. On the one hand, this enabled prisoners to contribute to something, have tasks and daily routines, and even learn several labor skills. On the other hand, it created both incentive and opportunity for private prison owners as well as political agents who profited from opening business opportunities within prisons[4]. An industrial sector was created that made not only profits, but that was also easy to expand upon given the precarious status of its workforce.

 However, some of the most drastic changes came with the founding of several private profit-oriented prison corporations – such as the Corrections Corporation of America – in the 1980s and their push for efficiency and corresponding support and demand for a ‘standardization’ in incarceration. Clustered cellblock layouts, reduced staff and increased surveillance became the norm. At the same time, several bills were introduced that led to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. It manifested a long-coming paradigm shift in incarceration, more specifically in the underlying understanding of its purpose. Rehabilitation became secondary when dealing with offenders, even first offenders[5]. Although the act’s contents were more of a guideline that reflected the Reagan administration’s ‘tough on crime’ stance than a binding law, the act was the result of a push from certain forces within US politics that had been intensified and invited by the changes already made in the 70s[6]. Thus, it opened the gates for one of the most criticized legal reforms and subsequent laws when it comes to discussing the prison-industrial complex today. Following then General Attorney William Barr’s controversial report titled The Case for More Incarceration[7], the 90s saw the passing of several mandatory minimum sentencing as well as truth in sentencing legislations on state and federal levels. The former of which required offenders to be sentenced to prison regardless of circumstances, the latter removed chances of early parole. They also saw the passing of the largest crime bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 under Clinton.

The above bill not only increased the funding of prisons, but also introduced the ‘three-strikes law’ that ultimately led to an increase of inmates[8] and thus also an increase of the profit margin that private prisons generated. This is because under that law – actually a collection of so-called habitual offender laws – people sentenced more than two times prior were now sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Often regardless of the nature of the alleged or actual offenses. Thus, as with the US legal system’s stance on drugs carrying on from before, these sentences disproportionately affected, and still do so until today, already marginalized groups who historically were less likely to receive support from the public and who were and are more likely to be poor i.e., especially African Americans and other POC.

Specific legislative moments aside, there are broader cultural contexts that are also important for understanding mass incarceration in the US. The following will briefly sketch out the three most important of these moments, starting with the so-called Southern strategy and Nixon’s successful presidential campaign, the decline of American industry and the increase in Black unemployment that went with it in the 70s, and lastly the appearance of crack cocaine in the mid-80s.

What is commonly referred to as the Southern strategy is, in practice, a platform of veiled racist policies and resentments. These are coded just enough to afford plausible deniability, while being a clear message for those who are meant to be the target audience. This audience was and still is composed largely of Southern whites: voters who were part of the New Deal alliance that dominated American politics from FDR to LBJ. These voters had, largely as a reaction against the visibility and advances of the Civil Rights Movement, already realigned themselves with the Republican platform of then presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. Nixon and all Republican candidates after him understood that they could build a stable majority by securing the Southern vote through these racist appeals while not alienating voters in other states by openly supporting segregation or Jim Crow.

Why does this matter for the rise of mass incarceration? It is exactly at this time that certain tropes that will dominate American politics for the following 40 years emerge. To be “tough on crime” and an insistence on “law and order” become the main talking points behind which opposition to the Civil Rights Movement gathers[9]. And it is Nixon himself, who, without large policy incentives, announces that illegal drugs are the biggest danger to America, subsequently calling for a “war on drugs.” These phrases and the thinly veiled racial subtext they contain are still some of the most powerful in American political discourse today. Through them, excessive policing and step-by-step criminalization of everyday life, integral parts to the system of mass incarceration, have been justified.

The second important context is the rapid changes that happened in the American economy during the 1970s. A large number of jobs in manufacturing and industry, blue collar work that was historically done by a large number of Black men with little formal education, disappeared as part of advancing globalization. As a consequence, Black unemployment, specifically male Black unemployment, rose sharply and black communities were economically devastated. The opposition to welfare and the vilification of those who have to rely on it which is another defining feature of American politics from Reagan onward has to be understood in this context. It is another appeal to racial antagonisms, as it is African Americans who disproportionately benefit from these programs since they are disproportionately affected by poverty. More importantly, for the rise of mass incarceration is that here large parts of the Black population, specifically in urban centers, are not aided through investments into social programs, but instead antagonized and construed as a problem that has to be managed though policing[10].

This problem was given a name with the appearance of crack cocaine in 1985, three years after which Reagan, following the specter of Nixon, announced his own “War on Drugs”. In Black neighborhoods that were already on the brink of economic collapse, the incentive to sell drugs in order to have any income at all was much higher than anywhere else in the country. The Reagan administration, instead of responding with prevention, addiction treatment or economic investment, increased the budget allocated to policing and incarceration drastically. Along with this went an orchestrated and highly successful media campaign: the crack epidemic and the incredible suffering it caused became the hottest story for the evening news since Vietnam and Watergate[11]. It is during this time that the image of the criminal as the Black, male drug addict becomes cemented in the imagination of the American public: this image is on TV constantly. It will continue to be for the next nearly 20 years.

Works Cited:

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. 2012. New York: The New Press.

Barr, William et al. The Case for More Incarceration. 1992. U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ-139583.

Berman, Douglas. “The 1994 Crime Bill: Legacy and Lessons - Tough and Smart: Federal Sentencing Provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill.” In: Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 32 (2020) No. 3, pp. 178-180.

Coats, Ta-Nehisi. “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration.” In: We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy, 2017, London: Penguin Random House.

Cummings, Andre Douglas Pond. “’All Eyez on Me’: America's War on Drugs and the Prison-Industrial Complex.” In: Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, Vol. 15 (2012) No. 3, pp. 417-448.

Davis, Angela Y. Are Prisons Obsolete? 2003. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Fulcher, Patrice A. “Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex.” In: Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 51 (2012), No. 3, pp. 589-617.

Pfaff, John F. “The War on Drugs and Prison Growth: Limited Importance, Limited Legislative Options.” In: Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 52 (2015) No. 1, pp. 173-220.

Tonry, Michael. “Federal Sentencing ‘Reform’ since 1984: The Awful as Enemy of the Good.” In: Crime and Justice, Vol. 44 (2015) No. 1, pp. 99-164.

[1] Andre Douglas Pond Cummings, “’All Eyez on Me’: America's War on Drugs and the Prison-Industrial Complex,” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 15 No. 3 (2012): 417-420.

[2] John F Pfaff, “The War on Drugs and Prison Growth: Limited Importance, Limited Legislative Options,” Harvard Journal on Legislation 52 No. 1 (2015): 174-178.

[3] Patrice A. Fulcher, “Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex,” Washburn Law Journal, 51 No. 3 (2012): pp. 598-606.

[4] Cummings: 434-437

[5] Michael Tonry, “Federal Sentencing ‘Reform’ since 1984: The Awful as Enemy of the Good,” Crime and Justice 44 No. 1 (2015): 105-110.

[6] Fulcher, “Hustle and Flow”, 593-595.

[7] William Barr et al., The Case for More Incarceration (U.S. Department of Justice 1992).

[8] Douglas Berman, “The 1994 Crime Bill: Legacy and Lessons - Tough and Smart: Federal Sentencing Provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill,” Federal Sentencing Reporter 32 No. 3 (2020): 178-180.

[9] Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, pp. 51-73.

[10] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, pp. 190-200

[11] Alexander, pp. 50-53.

by Olivia Simoni

The Origin of Policing in the United States

The history of policing in the United States of America dates back to 1636. The “Watch” was a private-for-profit system comprised of community volunteers whose duty was to warn of danger to the colonies.[1] Following the American Revolution and into the 1830s, the idea of a centralized police force emerged within the United States. In the Northern states, theses centralized police forces held similar characteristics while the Southern states held vastly different standards and characteristics than the Northern States (see The History of Policing in the United States for specific characteristics). In the South, the organized police force was created as a “Slave Patrol” that would “(1) chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules.”[2]

What does “defund the police” mean?

 The call to defund the police arose from the history of policing and prisons in the United States and continues to permeate American society as a means to uphold the foundation of capitalism that the country continues to thrive on.[3] Black abolitionists, such as Mariame Kaba, Angela Davis, and Ruth Wilson Gilmore, envisioned a movement that offered a new political framework, one that requires citizens to reimagine a society where policing and surveillance are decreased, and less people are behind bars. Defund the police specifically refers to the reallocation of funds away from police departments to other government agencies.[4] In addition to the reallocation of funds away from law enforcement, defund the police aims to decrease the size, scope, and overall power of the police system.[5]

If the funds will be taken from the police system, where will they go?

A major question that arises in the discourse of defunding the police is where the funds taken from law enforcement are reallocated. Based on the Figures 1 and 2 below, in the United States and Germany, it is evident that the majority of federal funds are allocated to the departments that uphold the structures of the departments of defense and justice in those countries (U.S.: Dept. of Defense & Dept. of Justice, Germany: Federal Ministry of Defense), rather than providing funds to agencies that would contribute to safety, security, and racial justice within society.[6]

Defunding the police creates a space for federal governments to eliminate the response of police to calls that require the attention of other professionals, such as crisis counselors. The reallocation of funds away from law enforcement agencies empowers other agencies to create and provide services that emphasize counseling for those suffering from mental health disorders, rehabilitation to those struggling with addiction, and other services (See Figure 3).

What is “prison abolition”?

Since 1971, incarceration rates in the United States have continually increased. In 1990, government reliance on private prisons increased sixteen-fold despite Resolution 115B at the 1990 February Midyear Meeting which cautioned private corporations and entities when drawing contracts with private prisons.[7] Profit-seeking private prisons thrive on harsher sentences that allow for more bodies to be behind bars. Essentially, private prisons increase avenues for corruption as a means of monetary gain.

Similar to defund the police, prison abolition is the call to do away with or decrease imprisonment and reimagine a system with alternatives to imprisonment, such as drug courts, probation or community corrections, halfway houses, home confinement, mental health courts, and so on.[8] Each of these alternatives would provide services or “punishment” to citizens who have committed an infraction but do not necessarily need to be put in prison, thus contributing to the decrease in incarceration rates.  The movement to abolish prisons proposes three pillars to abolition.[9] The three-step model towards prison abolition includes moratorium, decarceration, and excarceration (see Figure 4).

Works Cited:

“Alternatives to Incarceration in a Nutshell,” Families Against Mandatory Minimums, https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Alternatives-in-a-Nutshell.pdf/

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Compare the Actual FY 2020 Budget to Trump's Budget.” The Balance, November 6, 2020. https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2020-federal-budget-summary-of-revenue-and-spending-4797868.

Craig, Robert, and André Douglas Pond Cumming. “Abolishing Private Prisons: A Constitutional and Moral Imperative.” 2020, University of Baltimore Law Review 49 (3): 261-312. https://libproxy.unm.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?authtype=ip,guest&custid=s4858255&groupid=main&profile=eds&direct=true&db=edo&AN=144274054&site=eds-live&scope=site.

“Die Struktur Des Bundeshaushaltes.” Bundeshaushalt.de: www.Bundeshaushalt.de, January 7, 2021. https://www.bundeshaushalt.de/#/2020/soll/ausgaben/einzelplan/06.html.

Potter, Gary. “The History of Policing in the United States,” June 25, 2013. https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf.

Ray, Rashawn. “What Does 'Defund the Police' Mean and Does It Have Merit?” Brookings. Brookings, June 19, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/.

Tchoukleva, Yoana, Amalee Beattie, and Josh Cottle. “Defunding the Police: Brief Overview of History, Models and the Demands of the Movement.” Equal Justice Society, August 25, 2020. https://equaljusticesociety.org/2020/06/18/defunding-the-police-brief-overview-of-history-models-and-the-demands-of-the-movement/.

Washington, John. “What Is Prison Abolition?” The Nation, August 1, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-is-prison-abolition/.

[1] Gary Potter, “The History of Policing in the United States,” June 25, 2013, https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf/  [Accessed 4/22/2021].

[2] Potter, “The History of Policing in the United States.”

[3] Tchoukleva, Beattie, and Cottle, “Defunding the Police: Brief Overview of History, and the Demands of the Movement,” June 18, 2020, https://equaljusticesociety.org/defundthepolicememo/?link_id=1&can_id=c4dc0b1a85e098a6ede8f97e99609836&source=email-defunding-the-police-brief-overview-of-history-models-and-the-demands-of-the-movement&email_referrer=email_837475&email_subject=defunding-the-police-brief-overview-of-history-models-and-the-demands-of-the-movement/ [Accessed 4/22/2021]

[4] Rashawn Ray, “What Does 'Defund the Police' Mean and Does It Have Merit?,” Brookings (Brookings, June 19, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/ [Accessed 4/20/2021].

[5] Tchoukleva, Beattie, and Cottle, “Defunding the Police: Brief Overview of History, and the Demands of the Movement,” Equal Justice Society, June 18, 2020, https://equaljusticesociety.org/2020/06/18/defunding-the-police-brief-overview-of-history-models-and-the-demands-of-the-movement/ [Accessed 4/23/21]

[6] Kimberly Amadeo, “Compare the Actual FY 2020 Budget to Trump's Budget,” The Balance, November 6, 2020, https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2020-federal-budget-summary-of-revenue-and-spending-4797868/ [Accessed 4/20/2021]; “Die Struktur Des Bundeshaushaltes,” Bundeshaushalt.de: www.Bundeshaushalt.de, January 7, 2021, https://www.bundeshaushalt.de/#/2020/soll/ausgaben/einzelplan/06.html./ [Accessed 4/20/2021]

[7] Robert Craig; Andre Douglas Pond Cummings, "Abolishing Private Prisons: A Constitutional and Moral Imperative," University of Baltimore Law Review 49, no. 3 (Summer 2020): 262-3.

[8] John Washington, “What Is Prison Abolition?,” The Nation, August 1, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-is-prison-abolition/ [Accessed 4/23/2021]; “Alternatives to Incarceration in a Nutshell,” Families Against Mandatory Minimums, https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Alternatives-in-a-Nutshell.pdf/ [Accessed 4/23/2021].

[9] Washington, “What Is Prison Abolition?.”

by Alexa Moore

In the United States, the total prison population is 655 prisoners for every 100,000 people. Individual state capacities vary. For example, the state with the highest incarceration rate is Oklahoma, where 1,079 in every 100,000 people are in prisons. This number is almost double the national average. Other states, such as Massachusetts, have much lower rates, with 324 in every 100,000 people in prisons. Europe, on the other hand, has significantly lower incarceration rates than the United States. For example, in Germany, 78 of every 100,000 people are in prisons. Even the European country with the highest incarceration rate, Lithuania, has 235 prisoners for every 100,000 people, a number less than half that of the United States. On the low end is Finland, with less than 60 prisoners per 100,000 people. Somewhere in the middle is the UK, with a population of 141 prisoners per 100,000 people.[1]

The story is different, however, when one takes a closer look at European colonies. Focusing on former German Empire colonies, it is clear they have much higher incarceration rates than Germany. In Africa, the rate ranges from a low of 51 prisoners per 100,000 people in Ghana to 434 prisoners per 100,000 people in Rwanda. Tanzania (58), Mozambique (61), and Togo Republic (64) are on the lower end of the scale, while Namibia (295) and Botswana (208) make up the top end. Cameroon (121) and Kenya (108) fall in the middle. Like those in Africa, former colonies in the Pacific also have higher incarceration rates than those in Europe. Again, focusing on former German Empire colonies, coming in on top is the Northern Mariana Islands, with a rate of 482 prisoners for every 100,000 people. Below that is Palau (395), Samoa (204), Federated States of Micronesia (127), and finally Nauru (140).[2]

When compared, the United States has a much higher incarceration across the board. Many individual states have higher rates than entire European Countries. In the United States, 1 in 17 white males are expected to become incarcerated compared to 1 in 3 black males.[3] On the other hand, in the UK, with an incarceration rate of 13 percent among black men, 10 percent among Asians, and 6 percent mixed race, minority ethnic groups are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.[4] There is also a disparity among female inmates. In the United States, female prisoners make up 9.6 percent of the prison population, while in comparison, in Germany, only 5.6 percent of the prison population is comprised of women. The United States incarcerates women at almost twice the rate as Germany. Occupancy levels in Germany are at 79 percent, while in the United States, prison occupancy is at 99.8 percent.[5] The number of prisoners in Europe increased by 24 percent between 1993 and 2012.[6] In the United States, the same rate was double, with an over 50 percent increase between 1981 and 2011.[7]

There are a few reasons for the difference in incarceration rates in the United States and European countries like Germany. First, in Germany, prisons are centered on rehabilitation and resocialization and encourage prisoners to live their lives as normally as possible. In the United States, rehabilitation is secondary, and the prison system focuses on incapacitation and retribution. Germany uses incarceration very frequently and for short periods of time, while the United States uses it more as punishment with longer sentences. The average prison stay in Germany is two years or less, compared to three years or more in the United States. Finally, because the United States has criminal justice laws such as mandatory minimum sentences, parole release restrictions, and an average increase in custodial sentences, the prison population has continued to grow. In contrast, Germany has lower rates because of its use of non-custodial penalties and higher use of fines as penalties for non-violent crimes.[8]

In the United States and former German colonies, incarceration dynamics are similar because colonialism informed both prison systems. The advent of custodial prisons in Africa was central to the European colonial project, and these legacies still shape most African prisons.[9] In the United States, colonial imagery provided visions for the organization of institutions on specific hierarchies, and today’s “tough on crime” stance is parallel to colonialist myths.[10] Finally, in European colonies and the United States, prisons emerged as places of captivity, compared to European structures of rehabilitation and revival.[11]

Works Cited:

Bernault, Florence. “The Shadow of Rule: Colonial Power and Modern Punishment in Africa.” In Cultures of Confinement. New York, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007. 55-94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338265547_3_The_Shadow_of_Rule_Colonial_Power_and_Modern_Punishment_in_Africa.

DuDernay, Ava, director. 13^th. Netflix, 2016. 1hr., 40 min. https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741.

Eurostat. “Prison Statistics.” Eurostat Statistics Explained, last modified July 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Prison_statistics.

Ministry of Justice. Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2018. November 2019. 1-69. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/849200/statistics-on-race-and-the-cjs-2018.pdf.

Wagner, Pete. Federal Prison Incarceration Rate. Graph. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2014. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/US_federal_incrates_1978-2012.html.

Stone-Mediatore, Shari. “How America Disguises It’s Violence: Colonialism, Mass Incarceration, and the Need for Resistant Imagination.” Critical Review Of International Social And Political Philosophy 22, no. 1 (January 2019): 1-20. https://philarchive.org/archive/STOQAD.

Subramanian, Ram, and Alison Shames. Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. https://www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/sentencing-and-prison-practices-in-germany-and-the-netherlands-implications-for-the-united-states/legacy_downloads/european-american-prison-report-v3.pdf.

Wagner, Peter, and Wendy Sawyer. “States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2018.” Prison Policy Initiative. June 2018. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html.

Walmsley, Roy. “World Prison Population List.” World Prison Brief, no. 12 (June 2018): 1-19. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf.

World Prison Brief. “Germany.” World Prison Brief. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/germany.

[1] Peter Wagner and Wendy Sawyer, “States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2018,” Prison Policy Initiative, June 2018, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2018.html.

[2] Roy Walmsley, “World Prison Population List,” World Prison Brief, no. 12 (June 2018): 1-19, https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf.

[3] 13^th, directed by Ava DuDernay (Netflix, 2016), 1:22:53-1:23:17, https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741.

[4] Ministry of Justice, Statistics On Race and the Criminal Justice System 2018, November 2019: 39-41, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/849200/statistics-on-race-and-the-cjs-2018.pdf.

[5] Wolrd Prison Brief, “Germany,” World Prison Brief, accessed April 10, 2021, https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/germany.

[6] Eurostat, “Prison Statistics,” Eurostat Statistics Explained, last modified July 2020, accessed April 10, 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Prison_statistics.

[7] Pete Wagner, “Federal Prison Incarceration Rate,” graph, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/US_federal_incrates_1978-2012.html.

[8] Ram Subramanian and Alison Shames, Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013): 33-37, https://www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/sentencing-and-prison-practices-in-germany-and-the-netherlands-implications-for-the-united-states/legacy_downloads/european-american-prison-report-v3.pdf.

[9] Florence Bernault, “The Shadow of Rule: Colonial Power and Modern Punishment in Africa,” in Cultures of Confinement (New York, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007): 55-56, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338265547_3_The_Shadow_of_Rule_Colonial_Power_and_Modern_Punishment_in_Africa.

[10] Shari Stone Mediatore, “How America Disguises It’s Violence: Colonialism, Mass Incarceration, and the Need for Resistant Imagination,”

[11] Bernault, “The Shadow of Rule,” 87.

by Anna Kappel

1. Definition of Racial Profiling

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines racial profiling as a “discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin”. This practice is often used by the police, which relies on certain characteristics they believe are associated with crime.^[1] According to a report of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ethnic profiling is discernible in different situations, such as driving and walking while black or brown, additional screenings at airports and unconstitutional surveillance of people in their homes.^[2]

2. History of Racial Profiling

The practice of ethnic profiling goes back much further in history. Anita L. Willis observes that its roots can be traced back to colonial times, with the implementation of a Free Negro Registry, which meant to identify and track Free Persons of Color. She specifies that “The Free Negro Registry required registration every three years in the Virginia counties and cities. The minimum recorded information included the age, name color and stature, by whom and in what court the said Negro, or mulatto, was emancipated”.^[3] In addition, many registrations also forced to record the skin color, hair texture and color, height, marks or colors and the names of parents. A free person had to carry a copy of this register as a piece of identification, failing to do so would result in being sold into slavery or going to jail. Anita L. Willis states that after the Civil War, these laws were overthrown only to be reinstated in 1880 as the Jim Crow Laws.^[4]

In their 2014 report on Stop-and-Frisk Abuses and the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, the NAACP divides the historical occurrences of ethnic profiling into two categories: Pre-September 11, 2001 and Post-September 11, 2001. The association affirms that, before the events on September 11, 2001, the practice of ethnic profiling mostly happened in traffic controls, such as profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike, Maryland I-95 and Arizona Highways. The most apparent cases in which racial profiling occurred was when people of color were stopped and questioned while driving but it also happened off the roadways. Especially in New York City, stop-and-frisk practices — defined as “a state law that allows a police officer to stop any person without making an arrest based on a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime”^[5]— are being used, as illustrated by the NAACP report^[6]. Whereas African American and Latino men between the age of 14 and 24 represent 4.7% of New York City’s population, they make up 41.6% of those stopped in 2011. In June 2001, the End Racial Profiling Act restored some faith and was expected to become federal law, addressing points aiming to prohibit police reliance on race, ethnicity, nationality, and other characteristics without cause; but the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 represented an enormous step backwards in the attempt of ending racial profiling. The NAACP points out that, after these attacks, law enforcement relied on the use of race, ethnicity, nationality and religion to find suspects in the name of the so-called “war on terror”. The U.S. government targeted Arab and Muslim immigrants, detailing more than 1200 individuals in New York City. Although this tactic proved inefficient, in 2002, the National Entry-Exit Registration System (NEERS) was enforced. This system was designed to control foreign visitors that could present a threat to national security. Foreign visitors from specific countries were then obliged to register with immigration offices when they entered or left the city. NEERS also established a “special registration” which required a domestic registration of men 16 years of age or older and already living in the U.S. They had to report to their local immigration office, were photographed, fingerprinted and interrogated — failing to do so could result in criminal charges and deportation. More than 80,000 men showed up voluntarily, not one “terrorist” was identified through this process.^[7] 

David A. Harris makes use of the same periods as the NAACP to clarify the emergence of racial profiling. However, he mentions a third wave of the discriminatory practice, which appeared in the mid to late 2000s with the objective to suppress illegal immigration in the U.S. In 2010, in Arizona, the “Show Me Your Papers Law” was passed, which required that any police officer conducting a detention of any kind — for example a traffic stop or stop-and-frisk — must investigate the suspect’s immigration status whenever the officer had a suspicion of an immigration issue. With this law, officers were essentially obliged to perform ethnic profiling. Nowadays, due to Trump’s administration and the change in immigration policies and actions at the border with Mexico, the third wave of profiling in immigration is still very much present. David A. Harris observes a newly noticed phenomenon which he calls “Profiling by Proxy”. This describes the measures taken by white civilians when seeing African Americans in places in which the citizens don’t feel they belong. Whenever this happens, they summon police as their proxies to investigate the behavior of the — in their perception — out-of-place and therefore suspicious Blacks.^[8]

Racial Profiling has also been used during the “War on Drugs”. The 2014 report published by the NAACP affirms that drug laws were used by law enforcement to target specific communities of color. Beginning in the 1870s, anti-opium laws were used against Chinese immigrants, the early 1900s, when African American men were targeted by anti-cocaine laws in the South, and the 1910s and 1920s, when the first marijuana laws were used against Mexican migrants in the Southwest, the War on Drugs is a great example of the ineffectiveness of racial profiling. According to a report published by the ACLU, African Americans are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana use than whites, even though the rate of drug use is similar.^[9]

David A. Harris specifies that the concept of racial profiling as we know it today, was shaped in the 1980s in Florida. Bob Vogel, a state trooper, participated in drug interdiction along the state’s highways, and created a list of factors which were coming up in the most important drug busts. This categorization was then used and adapted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which created its own factors and systematized these into profiles. The DEA’s program was then used to train police all over the country.^[10]

While we mostly tend to associate ethnic profiling with the U.S., it should be mentioned that it does happen in many other countries. The focus will be on Germany, as the debates on racial profiling and police brutality have become more frequent over the past years.

3. Racial Profiling in Germany

In Germany, reasonless checks on persons solely on the basis of their physical appearance violates the German Basic Law (Art. 3 Part 3 GG), the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) and the prohibition of racial discrimination laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention Against Racism. On the other hand, there is neither a legal definition nor explicit prohibitions, for the use of racial profiling. Instead, police laws at the federal and state levels implicitly open up room for these types of police measures. Article 22 and 23 of the Federal Police Act require for suspicion- and occasion- independent checks on persons in border areas up to 30 kilometers inland, at airports, on trains and at train stations, and on highways to control and prevent unauthorized entry. Vanessa Eileen Thompson adds that the state police laws provide a legal basis for preventive crime control by designating and defining so-called “danger areas”, “dangerous” or “endangered” locations for checks that are not based on any particular reason or suspicion. At these designated places, local police authorities are permitted to carry out random checks on individuals, to question and search people, and to carry out video surveillance of the area on the basis of so-called police experience or crime statistics.^[11]

In 2018, Amnesty International published an essay on their position on human rights abuses of identity checks. The organization calls for the abolition of §22 paragraph 1a of the Federal Police Act mentioned above. According to Amnesty International, police statistics show that the practice of ethnic profiling hardly yields any search results, instead, it reinforces existing social and individual stereotypes and prejudices. Over the course of the last few years, the existence and extent of racial profiling has been increasingly discussed in Germany. One case that initiated the debate occurred in 2010 in Koblenz, Rhineland-Palatinate. A Black student had been asked by police officers to identify himself on a regional train to Frankfurt. He refused because he suspected a discriminatory measure. The dispute ended up in court. Initially, it was about the accusation of insulting an official, which one of the federal police officers involved had raised. The student was acquitted of this in the second instance. Because the officer explicitly justified the ID check in court on the basis of the student’s skin color, the student then sued the officer in order to recognize the unlawfulness of this action. However, the Koblenz Administrative Court ruled in favor of the federal police in February 2012.^[12] On October 29, 2012, the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland Palatinate came to the conclusion that the initial approach of the student and the request to identify oneself had violated the prohibition of discrimination in the Basic Law. Nevertheless, the German government denies that ethnic profiling is practiced in Germany even though a study conducted by the European Fundamental Rights Agency in 2010 showed that people with a Turkish or ex-Yugoslavian migration background are subjected to identity checks almost twice as often as the average population.^[13]

The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner published a statement conducted by a Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent in February 2017. The Working Group visited eight different cities in Germany: Berlin, Dessau, Dresden, Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, Düsseldorf, Cologne and Hamburg aiming to collect information on racial discrimination and racism towards people of African descent. The Working Group came to the conclusion that Germany is significantly less multicultural than it pretends to be.^[14]

The experts assert that the General Equal Treatment Act mentioned above is inaccurate since it does not mention racial discrimination committed by the State, for instance racial profiling by law enforcement and police violence. Furthermore, young men of African descent are confronted with law enforcement on a daily basis, the most used practice being stop-and-frisk controls. In the statement, the Experts note that Germany also failed to investigate in cases of racial discrimination, especially when these are committed by the police. A case which remains very disputed is the one of Oury Jalloh, an African asylum seeker. He died in police custody in Dessau in 2005 and until today, his death remains unexplained.^[15] Between 2009 and 2012, the cases of Ousman Sey, N’deye Mariame Sarr, Christy Schwundeck and Maria El-Sherbini are all instances in which the victims were either killed by a police officer or died in police custody. Moreover, the Working Group expresses another concern, which is the increase in hate crimes, especially by right wing extremists. The Experts also report on the humiliating treatment that younger people of African origin are facing by the authorities in pre-trial detention, in which they attempt to determine their age. Many young people shared their experiences, such as being forced to an x-ray exam even though they could present their passports and birth certificates. Moreover, they were also deprived of accessing legal aid. In another instance, at a youth detention center, detainees were only served one meal per day. Racial profiling and discrimination also occur in economic, social, and cultural areas. The most current example is that property owners select their tenants based on their name and appearance, thus making people of African descent less likely to be chosen. ^[16]

Based on above examples, one can conclude that racial profiling does exist in Germany, and cases have increased over the years. As more organizations begin to address the problems outlined, society gains more awareness and desire to support the effort.

Works Cited:

Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses & the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Born_Suspect_Report_final_web.pdf

Definition of Stop-and-Frisk Statute, last modified April 21, 2021,                                          https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/stop%20and%20frisk%20statute

Harris, David A. Racial Profiling: Past, Present, and Future?, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal-justice-magazine/2020/winter/racial-profiling-past-present-and-future/

Lehmann, Timo. Piltz, Christopher. Fall Oury Jalloh - warum das Schweigen?, last modified April 28, 2021. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/oury-jalloh-warum-das-schweigen-a-b6aed5e1-1cde-4b1a-a5a0-a27a72bb73ad

Racial Profiling: Definition, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.aclu.org/other/racial-profiling-definition

Racial/Ethnic Profiling: Position von Amnesty International zu menschenrechtswidrigen Personenkontrollen, last modified April 28, 2021, https://www.amnesty.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/Amnesty-Positionspapier-Racial-Profiling-September2014-Kurzfassung.pdf

Statement to the media by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, on the conclusion of its official visit to Germany, 20-27 February 2017, last modified April 21, 2021,                                                                                                                       https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21233&LangID=E

Thompson, Vanessa Eileen. Racial Profiling, institutioneller Rassismus und Interventionsmöglichkeiten, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/kurzdossiers/308350/racial-profiling-institutioneller-rassismus-und-interventionsmoeglichkeiten

Willis, Anita L. The Roots of Racial Profiling, last modified April 21, 2021, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1167

^[1] Racial Profiling: Definition, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.aclu.org/other/racial-profiling-definition

^[2] Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses & the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Born_Suspect_Report_final_web.pdf

^[3] The Roots of Racial Profiling, last modified April 21, 2021, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1167

^[4] The Roots of Racial Profiling, last modified April 21, 2021, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1167

^[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/stop%20and%20frisk%20statute , last modified April 21, 2021

^[6] Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses & the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Born_Suspect_Report_final_web.pdf

^[7] Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses & the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Born_Suspect_Report_final_web.pdf

^[8] Racial Profiling: Past, Present, and Future?, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal-justice-magazine/2020/winter/racial-profiling-past-present-and-future/

^[9] Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses & the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Born_Suspect_Report_final_web.pdf

^[10] Racial Profiling: Past, Present, and Future?, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal-justice-magazine/2020/winter/racial-profiling-past-present-and-future/

^[11] Racial Profiling, institutioneller Rassismus und Interventionsmöglichkeiten, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/kurzdossiers/308350/ - translated from German

^[12] Racial/Ethnic Profiling: Position von Amnesty International zu menschenrechtswidrigen Personenkontrollen, last modified April 28, 2021,                                                                                                                   https://www.amnesty.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/Amnesty-Positionspapier-Racial-Profiling-September2014-Kurzfassung.pdf - translated from German

[13] Racial/Ethnic Profiling: Position von Amnesty International zu menschenrechtswidrigen Personenkontrollen, last modified April 28, 2021,                                                                                                                   https://www.amnesty.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/Amnesty-Positionspapier-Racial-Profiling-September2014-Kurzfassung.pdf -  translated from German

^[14] Statement to the media by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, on the conclusion of its official visit to Germany, 20-27 February 2017, last modified April 21, 2021,                                                                                                                       https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21233&LangID=E

^[15] Lehmann, Timo. Piltz, Christopher. Fall Oury Jalloh - warum das Schweigen?, last modified April 28,2021

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/oury-jalloh-warum-das-schweigen-a-b6aed5e1-1cde-4b1a-a5a0-a27a72bb73ad

^[16] Statement to the media by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, on the conclusion of its official visit to Germany, 20-27 February 2017, last modified April 21, 2021, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21233&LangID=E

by Stephany Rutledge

This section is meant to concentrate on Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) groups (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) and the disparities they face while incarcerated compared to their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. There are brief overviews of cis-het information and statistics but will broadly focus more on minority groups.

It is important to keep in mind that due to the distinct, heteronormative standards of sexual culture within prisons, it is very difficult to reliably and accurately measure prisoner’s sexual orientation and behaviors. It is also important to note that sexuality and gender are rarely studied in prisons, other than instances of sexual assault. There is also very little data available and future studies need to be done to assess SGM prisoner populations.

Cis-Het

Men:

Because gender is a fluid and social construct, masculinity is not static, and it varies across time and cultures. Within prisons, heterosexuality can be used to test how much of a “man” someone is because it is an integral part of hegemonic masculinity. Many heterosexual men within prison will engage in same-sex sexual behaviors, especially instances of rape, to gain power in the prison hierarchy. In a study done by M. Kristen Hefner, she interviewed fourteen heterosexual inmates to explore how sexuality is organized with prison environments. All prisoners interviewed expressed that they view both inmates who are openly homosexual and inmates who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behaviors as gay; but nine of the fourteen men said they respected the openly gay prisoners more than the others.[1]

Women:

Because there are much fewer women prisoners, there are also less women’s prisons. This means that women often get placed farther from their homes than men do. Sometimes the only prison available is a high security prison, making women’s punishment more severe. Women’s prisons enforce strict gender norms, they tend to provide traditionally feminine educational and vocational programs, as well as traditionally feminine skills, i.e., cooking, cleaning, and beauty).[2]

SGM

Until the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act and the National Inmate Survey (NIS), information on prisoner’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and same-sex behaviors was not collected. The latest survey information available comes from 2011-2012: Approx. 238,000 sexual minorities were incarcerated in the US—9.3% of men in prison, 6.2% in jail, and 42.1% of women in prison, 35.7% in jail self-identified as having same-sex sexual experience prior to incarceration. The NIS estimates an incarceration rate of 1882 per 100,000 LGB-identified persons, compared to 612 per 100,000 general incarceration rates of adults. According to the Prison Policy Initiative and their analysis of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from 2019, LGB individuals had an arrest rate of 3,620 out of 100,000, making them 2.25 times likely to be arrested. Lesbian/bisexual women are 4 times more likely to be arrested than straight women, and gay/ bisexual men are 1.35 times as likely than straight men.[3]

Sexual orientation and gender-identity are among the greatest risk factors for victimization in correctional facilities. There is a 17.5% prevalence of sexual victimization towards gay/bisexual men within prisons, compared to 2.7% among straight men. SGM populations are already at an increased risk of victimization outside the prison system, and revictimization while in prison may carry added and/or prolonged health risks following release. Rigid heterosexist norms and hierarchies within prisons make the act of victimizing SGM people a very powerful process. Victimization has a direct effect on physical health (injuries and infectious diseases) as well as stress-induced physical problems (such as high blood pressure and obesity).[4] Victimization can deeply affect depression and anxiety.

The Minority Stress Model emphasizes how heteronormative contexts produce chronic stress due to prejudice, stigma, and discrimination.[5] Because identifying as SGM poses an increased threat of violence during incarceration, many may choose to conceal (or continue to conceal) their identity, making them especially susceptible to such associated health problems. Internalized homophobia and/or transphobia may become a more challenging and damaging issue one faces while in prison and can lead to poor health outcomes when out of prison.

Gender Identity

In a study done in a male prison, 59% of incarcerated transgender persons had been victims of assault. Based on the NIS, about 1 in 3 incarcerated trans persons had reported being victimized. In 2012, the Dept. of Justice issued standards that require correctional staff to consider one’s gender identity and personal safety when deciding where to place trans inmates. These guidelines are not legally binding, nor are they state or local laws. Medical assistance can be extremely important for trans incarcerated persons, yet many prisons and jails refuse to provide various forms of transition-related medical care. 2015 National Transgender Survey found that 37% of persons taking hormones prior to incarceration were prohibited from taking the hormones when in jail, prison, or juvenile detention.[6]

Gender Roles

In M. Kristen Hefner’s study, half of the participants interviewed said that homosexuality was an indication of weakness in prison. Some prisoners, however, began taking on more feminine characteristics (e.g., speaking in a high voice, wearing tight clothes, and having consensual sex with other prisoners). These prisoners also take on stereotypically feminine roles such as cooking and cleaning. These prisoners usually do not have much power, but their existence is a huge destabilizing force to the supposed binaries of gender and sexuality. Gay prisoners are also coveted for their reputation of being able to acquire contraband and information. This is a sort of “gender role” that the population takes on. Men who engage in homosexual relationships in prison are expected to “take on their role” by engaging in traditionally feminine behaviors instead of behaving in traditionally masculine ways which are reserved for inmates who identify as heterosexual.[7]

Race and Ethnicity

There is a disproportionate overrepresentation of Black people within prisons--they make up 13% of the US population, but 37.7% of the incarcerated population. Among men who are a sexual minority, 27% are Black and identify as gay or bisexual, and 34% are MSM (men who have sex with men). Black MSM are less likely to disclose their sexuality than white MSM, due to heteronormative standards within the prison environment.[8] Because of the hegemonic heteronormative culture within the prison environment toxic masculinity is a common survival strategy adopted. Once they are out of jail, they bring these attitudes with them into their communities. This creates whole communities of systematically disadvantaged black men who have been conditioned to be violent as a survival strategy, thus perpetuating the cycle of incarceration. Tough on crime policies spread violence and homophobia into prisons and poor (mostly minoritized) communities.

Transgender BIPOC face extremely high rates of police discrimination and victimization. 38% of Black respondents who had contact with police experienced harassment, 15% were physically assaulted, and 7% were sexually assaulted.[9] The Prison Policy Initiative reports on a Black and Pink survey done with 1,118 incarcerated LGBTQ persons: 85% of the survey’s respondents disclosed being put in solitary confinement at some point of their sentencing—BIPOC LGBTQ incarcerated persons were twice as likely to be put in solitary confinement compared to white LGBTQ incarcerates.[10]

Works Cited:

Baćak, Valerio, Kate Thurman, Katie Eyer, Rubab Qureshi, Jason D.P. Bird, Luis M. Rivera, and Suzanne A. Kim. “Incarceration as a Health Determinant for Sexual Orientation and Gender Minority Persons.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 8 (2018): 994–99. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2018.304500.

Hefner, M. Kristen. “Queering Prison Masculinity: Exploring the Organization of Gender and Sexuality within Men’s Prisons,” Men and Masculinities 21, no. 2 (2018): 230-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17695037.

Pemberton, Sarah. “Enforcing Gender: The Constitution of Sex and Gender in Prison Regimes,” Signs 39, no. 1 (2013): 151-75. https://doi.org/10.1086/670828.

Prison Policy Initiative. “Visualizing the Unequal Treatment of LGBTQ People in the Criminal Justice System.” Posted March 2, 2021. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/03/02/lgbtq/.

[1] M. Kristen Hefner, “Queering Prison Masculinity: Exploring the Organization of Gender and Sexuality within Men’s Prisons,” Men and Masculinities 21, no. 2 (2018): 230-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17695037

[2] Sarah Pemberton, “Enforcing Gender: The Constitution of Sex and Gender in Prison Regimes,” Signs 39, no. 1 (2013): 151-75. https://doi.org/10.1086/670828.

[3] “Visualizing the Unequal Treatment of LGBTQ People in the Criminal Justice System,” Prison Policy Initiative, March 2, 2021, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/03/02/lgbtq/.

[4] Valerio Baćak et al., “Incarceration as a Health Determination for Sexual Orientation and Gender Minority Persons,” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 8 (August 2018): 995. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304500

[5] Baćak et al., “Incarceration,” 994.

[6] Ibid., 996-97.

[7] Hefner, “Queering,” 239-44.

[8] Baćak et al., “Incarceration,” 996.

[9] Pemberton, “Enforcing Gender,” 165.

[10] Prison, “Visualizing.”

“Life after prison” – this phrase inherently includes the element of prison in the time that follows it. The effects of being incarcerated do not cease to exist once released from prison. Rather, they come with a lifelong challenge of incorporating the identity of being a “felon”. The United States’ long history of the prison industrial complex requires full understanding before it is possible to comprehend why and how the label “felon” or “prisoner” is so enduring and life-changing.

Generally speaking, freedom is an ambivalent term in the context of prisons. On the one hand, being released from prison is celebrated under the belief that one is finally “free”. On the other hand, this freedom can be limited, especially in the U.S., where probation and parole play a large role in deciding on life after prison. The documentary “Becoming Free”, directed by Kirsten Adair, presents this ambivalence of freedom by showing the lives of three incarcerated people from Washington D.C[1].

The prison system in the U.S. was created under the assumption that the higher the number of imprisoned people is, the lower crime rates would be. Although it has been argued that less prison time and prison laws may change this, it is blatant that the U.S. system relies on the label that prison gives to a person, rather than the time that they spend there. The War on Drugs is the leading reason as to why parole and probation exist. Once marked as a felon, one enters a new life that is especially controlled by the identity that marks one as a “prisoner”, hereby making the felony record the most decisive thing in regard to the future. When confronted with parole and probation after being in prison, it is a challenge to deal with the obstacles that life provides. If these obstacles are not subsequently overcome, one will be sent back to prison, which ultimately shows the harsh crisis that the new identity of “felon” can make one spiral into. The prison system inherently does not provide the resources for a successful after-prison life, which leads to very high recidivism rates in the U.S[2].

The many dimensions of post-prison life are connected with each other as their boundaries overlap in terms of individual and community identity. These dimensions can include communites in the area of either family, peers, work or education as well as state dimensions enacted by the label of ‘prisoner’ and individual dimensions that include standards and goals for oneself. The intersections of these dimensions can become quite clear when looking at the measures that are taken to find employment after being incarcerated. A Maryland pilot study showed that the methods used to search for employment were mostly through friends, family, newspaper ads and spontaneous applications at the location[3]. This clearly presents the intersection of the dimension of friends, community and work after prison and shows the reliance on the proximity of easily accessible applications. This is just one example of how these dimensions affecting life after incarceration can impact each other.

Often, in discourse on the prison industrial complex, the connection or comparison to the German prison system is made. The German system is based on resocialization and rehab, which are both strong pillars for providing access to reintegration strategies after prison. German prisons consider it a main responsibility of the prison sentence to successfully provide the prisoner with the tools to reintegrate after their in-prison time. By using the institution of prison less and incorporating other means of socially-oriented punishment, a space is created that normalizes the aspects of life after prison inside prison already[4].

The MABIS program in Germany exists to secure the support or guidance on the way back to employment after prison. 11 out of 37 prisons in North Rhine-Westphalia have implemented this program, which provides training for the placement in a job after being released from prison. The success of this program also largely depends on the opportunities of education offered to former prisoners, which increases the successful reintegration of people who have been incarcerated into employment[5].

German after-prison life is determined and can be distinguished from that in the US by multiple factors, which have been mentioned before. In addition to this, as early as 1954, after a juvenile’s sentence, judges in Germany could decide whether the sentence would go on their record or not, thereby providing one possible opportunity for a more successful life after prison. It was different for adults, but nevertheless – only some public institutions had access to the conviction record and it mostly did not lead to problems with re-integration into society[6].

The implications for the US in using Germany as an example are that many practices prove much more successful when looking at their social impact. The changes that can be made include generally not using prison sentences as a first resort, making use of a larger width of options, reevaluating and reforming sentence times, as well as reforms in housing and prison resources. A normalization of life in prison is an effective way to prepare for life after prison and reentry can be avoided by the options mentioned above[7]. Overall, a comparative view on prisons and their structures can provide a meaningful perspective on prison reform in the future.

Works Cited:

Adair, Kristen. Becoming Free. Washington, 2018.

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press, 2010.

European Commission. “From Prison to Working Life: Networking for a Successful Transition”.

Accessed April 22, 2021.

https://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal_consolidated/data/document/etg1-exa2-

zubilis.pdf.

La Vigne, Nancy, Jeremy Travis, Christy A. Visher. Returning Home: Understanding the

Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore.

Washington: Urban Institute, 2004.

Subramanian, Ram, Alison Shames, “Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the

Netherlands: Implications for the United States”, Federal Sentencing Reporter 27, no. 1

(October 2014): 33-45.

Wahl, Alfons T., “Probation and Parole in Germany”, Federal Probation 18, no. 3 (September

1954): 38-41.

Further helpful resources/examples:

• Positive prison example in Kentucky: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/05/prison 
• Links to articles about life after prison: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/2346-life-after-prison 
• Returning Home study: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/justice-policy-center/projects/returning-home-study-understanding-challenges-prisoner-reentry
• The Sentencing Project: https://www.sentencingproject.org
• Campaign to end life imprisonment: https://endlifeimprisonment.org
• Stats and facts: http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/hardtime/resources.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/opinion/what-we-learned-from-german-prisons.html?_r=1

[1] Kristen Adair, Becoming Free (Washington, 2018).

[2] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: The New Press, 2010), 94-95.

[3] Nancy La Vigne, Jeremy Travis, Christy A. Visher, Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Maryland Pilot Study: Findings From Baltimore (Washington: Urban Institute, 2004), 42.

[4] Ram Subramanian, Alison Shames, “Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States”, Federal Sentencing Reporter 27, no. 1 (October 2014): 35-42.

[5] “From Prison to Working Life: Networking for a Successful Transition,” European Commission, accessed April 22, 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal_consolidated/data/document/etg1-exa2-zubilis.pdf, 2-5.

[6]Alfons T. Wahl, “Probation and Parole in Germany”, Federal Probation 18, no. 3 (September 1954): 38-41.

[7] Ram Subramanian, Alison Shames, “Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States”, Federal Sentencing Reporter 27, no. 1 (October 2014): 42-43.

by Sarah Wägerle

Since statistics show that there is a high correlation between prison education and decreasing recidivism rates, this part of the project will focus on educational programs in U.S. prisons. What educational courses are available and/or compulsory for inmates?

In both federal and state prisons, participating in one of the GED (“General Educational Development”) courses is mandatory. The majority of those entering prison do not have a high school diploma or a GED[1]. Therefore, they must participate in the literacy course for at least 240 hours in total. For those who do not speak English, English as a Second Language is compulsory as well, according to the U.S. Department of Education[2].

What specific courses are there in prison?

There are academic courses available for prisoners, such as the ABE (Adult Basic Education) which is offered to those reading below ninth-grade level. It includes literacy programs as well. Additionally, prisoners can take ASE courses (Adult Secondary Education), which mostly aim toward preparation for the general educational development exams, which is the last step before obtaining a high school diploma (see above: GED).

For those who do not want to pursue an academic career in prison, vocational courses (sometimes referred to as career courses / programs) might be more convenient. As is already implied by the term, career courses aim to prepare inmates for specific types of work, such as becoming a carpenter, mechanic or physical trainer[3].

While it is theoretically possible to take college courses while incarcerated, in reality it is extremely difficult due to the lack of universities that cater to prisons.

In 2016, reports stated that only 35% of state prisons provided college courses[4]. If one is lucky enough to be incarcerated in an area where there are universities nearby, the chances of taking college courses increases. It looks different for prisons “in the middle of nowhere”, so to speak, though[5].

Case Study: Youth Offender Program (“YOP”) in North Carolina from 1998

In 1998, North Carolina came up with a program called Youth Offender Program which was designed to offer post-secondary educational courses to youth offenders. Urrieta, Martin and Robinson then conducted a study with data from 2007-2009 from the YOP, which so blatantly shows that these educational courses gave young African American inmates hope and aspiration, not only for their everyday lives in prison but also for when they are released from prison[6]. However, the study also mentions that while education can have a tremendously positive effect on their young lives, the African American male youth will still face terrible inequalities and racism once they try to get back to normal.

“Second Chance Pell Pilot Program”

In 2015, the Department of Education announced the so-called Second Chance Pell Pilot Program which would make it possible for incarcerated to receive Pell Grants (= financial aid provided by the Department of Education) and pursue postsecondary education and training in both federal and state prisons[7]. This program will come into force in 2022; until then, incarcerated students are excluded from receiving federal financial support. However, it is possible for inmates to receive financial aid through scholarships, college programs, state aid and experimental federal programs[8].

Summary

Indeed, making education available for inmates is undoubtedly essential, not only in order for them to stay out of prison once they are released, but also to give them a life filled with purpose and less violence behind bars. However, it would be naïve to assume that education is the answer to reducing recidivism rates. Since People of Color are more affected by mass incarceration, assuming that education is the ultimate answer would only fuel the logic of white supremacist mass incarceration, according to Castro[9]. Focusing on education only would disguise the injustices People of Color face once they are out of prison, such as safe housing, sustainable employment etc.[10] Yes, education can open doors for many, but for People of Color, lower income populations and undereducated communities to live in a society that is working towards propelling them into criminal systems, education is one of numerous approaches to the solution.

Works Cited:

Bender, Kathleen. “Education Opportunities in Prison are Key to Reducing Crime.” Center for American Progress, March 2, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/news/2018/03/02/447321/education-opportunities-prison-key-reducing-crime/.

Castro, Erin L. 2018. “Racism, the Language of Reduced Recidivism, and Higher Education in Prison: Toward an Anti-Racist Praxis.” Critical Education 9, no. 17 (November): 1-14. http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186357.

Federal Bureau of Prisons. N.d. “Custody & Care: Education Programs.” Accessed April 25, 2021. https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/education.jsp.

Kerr, Emma. “Financial Aid Options for Incarcerated Individuals.” U.S. News, March 1, 2021. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/financial-aid-options-for-incarcerated-individuals-and-their-children.

U.S. Department of Education. “Secretary DeVos Expands Second Chance Pell Experiment, More than Doubling Opportunities for Incarcerated Students to Gain Job Skills and Earn Postsecondary Credentials.” Accessed April 24, 2021. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-expands-second-chance-pell-experiment-more-doubling-opportunities-incarcerated-students-gain-job-skills-and-earn-postsecondary-credentials.

Urrieta, Luis Jr. Martin, Karla. Robinson, Courtney. „I am in School!“: African American Male Youth in a Prison/College Hybrid Figured World. The Urban Review 43, no. 4 (September 2011): 491-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0188-8.

Zoukis, Christopher. 2015. “Vocational Training in Prison: Helping Offenders Find Skilled Jobs and Stay out of Prison.” Accessed April 25, 2021. https://www.prisonerresource.com/prison-research-papers/vocational-training-in-prison/.

[1] Erin L. Castro, „Racism, the Language of Reduced Recidivism, and Higher Education in Prison: Toward an Anti-Racist Praxis.” Critical Education 9, no. 17 (November 2018): 5.

[2] Federal Bureau of Prisons, accessed April 24, 2021. https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/education.jsp.

[3] Christopher Zoukis, “Vocational Training in Prison”, accessed April 25, 2021, https://www.prisonerresource.com/prison-research-papers/vocational-training-in-prison/.

[4] Kathleen Bender, “Education Opportunities in Prison Are Key to Reducing Crime,” Center for American Progress, March 2, 2018, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/news/2018/03/02/447321/education-opportunities-prison-key-reducing-crime/.

[5] Emma Kerr, “Financial Aid Options for Incarcerated Individuals,” U.S. News, March 1, 2021, https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/financial-aid-options-for-incarcerated-individuals-and-their-children.

[6] Luis Urrieta Jr., Karla Martin, and Courtney Robinson. “’I am in School!’ African American Male Youth in a Prison/College Hybrid Figured World.” The Urban Review 43, no. 1 (September 2011): 491, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0188-8.

[7] “Secretary DeVos Expands Second Chance Pell Experiment, More than Doubling Opportunities for Incarcerated Students to Gain Job Skills and Earn Postsecondary Credentials.” U.S. Department of Education. Accessed April 24, 2021. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-expands-second-chance-pell-experiment-more-doubling-opportunities-incarcerated-students-gain-job-skills-and-earn-postsecondary-credentials.

[8] Kerr, “Financial Aid Options.”

[9] Castro, “Racism, the Language of Reduced Recidivism,” 10.

[10] Castro, “Racism, the Language of Reduced Recidivism,” 9.