Hunter Whitehead Dr.

Joshua Gold POLS 1100 11/15/13 Summary Critique In 2013, writers Jeffery Reiman and Paul Leighton released the 10th edition of, the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice, published by the Pearson Publishing Company. The authors were determined to educate their readers about the utter failure of the American criminal justice systems ability to reduce crime and its impact upon society. This book was intended for a classroom setting in direction for students who are pursuing criminology majors. It appears as if the authors extensive background and education in Criminal Justice and Philosophy allowed them to develop a distinct view on the American Criminal Justice System. In return, it also prompted them to share their knowledge with the public. The United States has a substantially higher crime rate compared to other western industrialized democracies. With the American criminal justice system failing to reduce crime, we will investigate three main topics: Americas high crime rate, excuses for high crime rates, and the sources of crime. The authors arguments and beliefs portray a populist view, which I agree with. Although U.S. crime rates have decreased in recent years, only a small fraction can be credited to the government policies. In response to high crime rates over the last 50 years, political leaders have created a number of expensive proposals to try and help decrease the crime rates in our society. From 1980 to 2000, the U.S. built a record-breaking number of prisons, giving America the highest incarceration rate in the whole world.

Because of this, politicians were able to implement various policies, making it easier for people to get incarcerated. In 1997, President Clinton proposed a policy to put 100,000 new police on the streets. When crime rates started to decrease politicians claimed that their policies were the main reasons for the reductions, giving the people of America a false perception when in reality their policies were only a small factor. The President of the American Society of Criminology, Richard Rosefeld, claimed that, the prison build-up was responsible for 25 percent of the drop in crime rates. (Rosefeld, pg.14) He made this claim despite statistics having shown that prisons have had some negative side effects that counteract with its public safety in the long run. Furthermore, the U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the policy of hiring 100,000 new cops accounted for only 5 percent in the reduction of crime. (GAO, pg.14). According to the authors, most of the factors of the decline in crime rates can be attributed to factors beyond the criminal justice system including: the decrease of crack usage, times of economic growth, unemployment benefits, and the removal of lead from our environment.(Reiman & Leighton, pg17) Although politicians policies to reduce crime have had a modest effect, the fact remains that the criminal justice systems policy is still failing to make the publics lives significantly safer. The authors arguments on how government polices have only made a marginal effect on reducing the crime rates are logically coherent based on the numerous sources and explanations. They argue that the increase of incarcerations has had some side effects that counteract some of its public safety benefits. This has been shown to be true in the real world: with inmates developing ties with other criminals, ex-cons relapsing to crime in means of making money because they are unable to get a job due to their criminal record,

and the effects of family formation. The authors identify key causes for the true reduction of the recent crime rates: decrease of crack usage, times of economic growth, unemployment benefits, and the removal of lead from our environment, which all seem more logical than simply the increase of prisons and police. Reiman and Leighton believe that the three main excuses for the high rate of crime and violence in the U.S. are, indeed, incorrect reasons. The majority of our public shares the first excuse: our criminal justice system is too soft. However, compared to other countries our criminal justice system does not suggest that we are too soft. Furthermore, the U.S incarceration rates stand in the same proportion to our overall crime rates as those of other countries. Indicating that we are no more lenient than other countries. The second excuse is that as we become more advanced, populous, and particularly more urbanized we will have more crime, as inevitably as we have more ulcers and more traffic.(Reiman & Leighton pg. 26) What about other highly industrialized and technologically advanced nations such as Japan that have crime rates that are remarkably lower than ours? The Sourcebook of 2003, did a comparison with various cities (above the population of 50,000) in the U.S. and found a lack of correlation between population size and crime rate. The final excuse, they claim, is that young people are committing the majority of the crimes. The authors argue that, Although it has been proven that the number of youngsters in the populace has an important effect on crime rates, it cannot fully explain them or explain them away.(Reimen & Leiman pg. 31) Overall, these excuses appear to be invalid reasons for the high crime rate and violence in the United States. The authors assessment of the three main excuses for high crime rate in America was factual yet very valid. Their explanation of how our country is not too soft and lenient

is reasonable. If our country was too soft, would we be the only western industrialized nation that still had the death penalty? And, would our prison sentencings be harder and longer than any other nation? Reiman and Leighton criticize the second excuse comparing Americas crime rates to other industrialized and technologically advanced nations such as Japan. Although some crime may be unavoidable consequence of urbanization, this doesnt excuse our failure to reduce crime. Studies prove that there is a lack of correlation between crime rate and population size. In support with the authors arguments about blaming crime on the youth, history has compared crime rates with the population over the last 50 years. In result, it has showed that while the population in 2000 and 1960 were similar, the crime rate in 2000 was almost four times higher than that of, 1960. Leading to the conclusion that the growth in crime rate cannot be attributed to youth. Rich Get Richer discussed four sources that are important in producing crime: inequality, the conditions of prison, our overuse of guns (especially handguns), and the current drug policy. The first source mentioned in this chapter is the inequality amongst the rich and the poor. As the rich continue to get richer through tax cuts and other policies, the poor continue to get poorer, causing them to commit crimes and end up in prison. Reiman states that, economic inequality may result in crime, not simply from need, but by producing an impoverished class that feels left out from society and thus doesnt develop and allegiance to its major institutions.(Reiman, pg. 32) The overcrowding warehousestyle prisons do not encourage pro-social behavior. Additionally, prisons have very few programs to help inmates be better people when they get out and the penitentiaries fail to give them the necessary skills and opportunities to prevent prisoners from returning to a life of crime. The overuse of prisons essentially hurts families and communities in the long

run. Next, the U.S. has over 200 million guns and makes it is relatively easy to obtain one, which aids to the increase in lethal violence. Lastly, Americas anti-drug policy is failing to prevent the usage of drugs and succeeding in only adding to crime. Drugs being illegal, causes users to steal in order to aid their habit; gives drug lords incentives to battle for the large sums of money; corrupts law enforcement officials; and causes law abiding citizens to become felons for simply the recreational usage of drugs. These four sources are important in producing crime even if the exact components arent identified. The first source the authors examined, the inequality amongst the rich and the poor, is comparable to the concept found in the in Democratic Debate, which often describe the inequality amongst richest 1 percent (the elite) and the rest of the country (the 99 percent). In the real world, how can we expect to reduce crime when government leaders like President George W. Bush are taking away money from programs like welfare in order to give the elite tax cuts? The second source the authors examined was the conditions of prisons. If we know prisons produce more criminals than they cure, then why do we continue to use the taxpayers dollars to fund theses facilities? Furthermore, the enormous amount of African American criminals who are convicted of felonies and, therefore, deprived of their right to vote, are having a negative impact on the black communities ability to participate in the political process. This seems like a very elitist strategypreventing the ordinary people of America from being involved in politics as much as possible. The third source the authors discussed was the overuse of guns in America. The authors claim that, if guns were eliminated and the number of crimes held steady, we could expect to save as many as two out every three victims of homicide. (Reiman & Leighton, pg.38) Nations who eliminate guns from their country have a remarkably lower

crime rate than ones who dont. Pro-gun activists argue that making guns illegal would only take guns away from law-abiding citizens and criminals will still buy guns from unregulated sources. However they fail to recognize that, as studies show many guns used in homicides are bought legally. The final source the authors examined was Americas drug policy. The authors argue that America is failing to prevent its anti-drug policy and succeeding to add to our high crime rates. They suggest that we are better off decriminalizing drugs, taking their production and sale, and expanding treatment and public health initiatives. These points appear to be valid. In 2001, Portugal eliminated penalties for all drugs in amount for personal use. An evaluation in the British Journal of Criminology, found reductions in problematic drug use and states that, Portugals experience shows that decriminalization does not inevitably lead to an increase of drug use. (British Journal of Criminology, pg. 44) Moreover, studies have shown the best cure for drug addiction is through treatments. So, if we took the money used from decriminalizing drugs and expanded treatments we ultimately would reduce crime and cure Americas drug addiction problem. Throughout chapter 1 of the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice, written by Jeffery Reiman and Paul Leighton we examine Americas criminal justice systems utter failure to reduce crime over the last 50 years through: Americas high crime rate, the excuses for high crime rate, and the sources of crime. Overall, this was a very informative yet interesting read, opening my perception to the way our criminal justice system fails to address the immense crime rates and how crime truly originates. The authors populist arguments appeared to be very valid, backing their

statements up with many graphs, research, and citations, manifesting a brilliant piece of writing.

Works Cited Reiman, Jeffrey H., and Paul Leighton. "Chapter 1/Crime Control in America Nothing Succeeds Like Failure." The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Boston [etc.: Pearson, 2013. 1-51. Print. Leighton, Paul. "Ch 1: Crime Control in America - Nothings Succeeds Like Failure." Paul's Crime and Justice Page: Companion Website for Jeffrey Reiman, Therich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ch 1 Summary. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. George W. Bush Is Smarter than You | RealClearPolitics. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/25/george_w_bush_is_smarter_than_you_11 8125.html>.