RUNNING HEAD: SILENT DISCRIMINATION: EX-OFFENDERS NAVIGATING REENTRY 1

Silent Discrimination: Ex-Offenders Navigating Reentry

Deborah Thornton

University of Houston Clear Lake

July 29, 2015

Word Count: 3886

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 2

Silent Discrimination: Ex-Offenders Navigating Reentry

Every day thousands of needy people across the nation are being shunned, simply

because they are from a class of citizens known as ex-offenders. Society has chosen to punish

this group past the point that the law allows. With few options, due to lack of living wage jobs

and/or safe affordable housing, many of these people will do nothing more than to live in quiet

obscurity. Shielded from the light of happiness by the shadow of their past, victims are born all

over again. A brief examination of the historical aspects of the discrimination of ex-offenders

will be presented in this discourse. The author will purvey how various forms of discrimination

effect ex-offenders in current society and the possibility of future discrimination. And lastly, the

author will present alternatives and possible solutions for ending the silent discrimination

suffered by ex-offenders.

The United States has the largest prison population in the world. In 2013, 2,220,300

people were incarcerated in the adult correctional system. In the same year 631,168 inmates were

released back into society. (Glaze & Kaeble 2014) The Vera Institute of Justice reported in 2015

that jails throughout the United States have become warehouses for the poor, the mentally ill and

those suffering from addiction. Such individuals lack the financial means or mental capacity to

post bail. (Williams 2015) The United States has a long history of incarcerating people and

releasing them back into society with little or no means of full integration. Offenders

incarcerated in America’s prisons, make up a significant portion of our population. Society must

begin to address the stigma attached to these human beings as they attempt to become productive

members of society.

Formation of Social Issue

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 3

Crime, punishment and rehabilitation in the United States are social constructions that

have evolved over time. The current issues surrounding the discrimination of ex-offenders flow

largely from changes within our culture and the economy of our nation. Our inability to allow

ex-offenders to achieve success within society is closely related to the current social structure

and social norms existing within the United States.

Evolution of the Discrimination Against Ex-Offenders

Historically, the majority group has retained power over punishment and rehabilitation.

The early colonies were theocracies in which sin and crime were interrelated. The law was

divine, and the courts were often an extension of the church. Colonial criminal justice systems

reflected the religious beliefs of the community. The public perceived criminals as members of

the community who had gone astray. The courtroom was a place for the criminal to repent and

reintegration into the community was the common goal. Public punishment was the most

common theme, incarceration was rare, and repeat offenders were banished. The early

Republican period was a time of transition in America. A new nation, driven by industrialization,

gave rise to a capitalistic economy. The influx of immigrants, territorial growth, and the

Industrial Revolution paralyzed the colonial legal system, which resulted in the need for a new

means of social control. “New political philosophies, such as the Bill of Rights, transformed

criminal justice. A desire for humane punishment instigated the development of the American

penitentiary. Penitentiaries were originally conceived as a place of quiet, soulful penitence.

Reintegration in the community remained the intent. By the 1820s, incarceration generally

replaced most types of corporal punishment.” (Friedman 1993) The professionalization of the

police and court systems were social inventions of the nineteenth century. These changes came

about to combat increased lawlessness. A professional police force was better able to enforce

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 4

social constraints over new immigrants, the homeless, and other minority groups. A differential

in power began to develop within police and judicial systems, which were dominated by the

majority group.

The Industrial Revolution brought about social mobility, which in turn changed the very

nature of crime. Violent crimes and crimes involving trust became more common. Mobility, or

the push of a population to move to new areas of development made crime more difficult to

detect. This movement led to a need for a federal form of crime control. The Federal Bureau of

Investigation was created on July 26, 1908 and began to combat crime on a national level. (FBI,

2014)

In the twentieth century social mobility among the majority group has contributed to new

theories on crime, punishment and rehabilitation. Citizens are demanding more individual rights.

Social and political factors have influenced a new definition of crime, and minority groups have

been integrated into the criminal justice system with little or no choice. Race, gender, and class

have had a profound impact on the law in regards to what actions are considered criminal. These

minority classifications have also set the standards for institutional discrimination of ex-

offenders. Our nation’s policy on rehabilitation is to build more prisons in anticipation of the ex-

offenders failure in our postindustrial society. In current times, ex-offenders live under the

watchful eye of the majority group’s ethnocentrism.

Application to Course Material

The United States is often referred to as the watch dog of democracy for the entire world.

Our country is most often portrayed as the “international good guy” (Lowen 1995 p. 221), by

educators, media, and the government itself. Lowen (1995 p. 221) states, “our policies are

viewed as part of a morality play in which the United States typically acts on behalf of human

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 5

rights, democracy, and “the American Way”.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Our

nation has a long history of invading and conquering other countries for the sole means of

acquiring their land, natural resources and obtaining cheap labor. There is very little concern of

ensuring democracy or the freedom of human beings. America has been practicing domination

and discrimination since the first Englishmen set foot on our eastern seaboard. Sociologists have

been studying these atrocities for centuries and have developed many theories about the cycle of

oppression in America. Some of these models can be applied to the discrimination of ex-

offenders. “The Noel hypothesis states: If two or more groups come together in a contact

situation characterized by ethnocentrism, competition and a differential in power some form of

racial or ethnic stratification will result. If the contact situation has all three characteristics, some

dominant – minority group structure will be created.” (Healey 2014 p. 101) Ethnocentrism can

lead people to view others as not only different, but inferior. It also creates an invisible line, or

social boundary, which tends to enforce stereotypes that the dominant group has placed on the

minority group. (Healey 2015 p. 101) American citizens have been proselytized to believe that

ex-offenders will never be rehabilitated. The media plays a large role in negatively portraying

ex-offenders as the cause of crime. The populous cries out to lock them all up, and keep them

locked up. This negative connotation of ex-offenders enforces and strengthens ethnocentrism

amongst this group. Competition amongst ex-offenders and the majority group comes in to play

in a myriad of ways. Competition for jobs within the secondary labor market has increased in our

postindustrial nation. Citizens that are currently competing in this labor pool do not welcome

newcomers to the group. Since the majority of ex-offenders have little human capital upon

release, many of them turn to the secondary labor market for work. This specific labor pool is

littered with immigrants, lower class poor, and races other than white. These groups that are

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 6

discriminated against by the majority group, are now able to practice these same forms of

discrimination against ex-offenders. A differential in power is the last feature of the Noel

hypothesis. Power commanded by the majority group has three factors. First, the size of the

group makes a difference. Second, the degree of organization, discipline, and the quality of

group leadership empowers a group to pursue its goals. The final factor, is the group’s resources,

which can be used to help groups achieve their goals. (Healey 2015, p. 102-103) Local, state and

federal government would be the majority in this situtation. These institutions have the size,

organization, discipline, resources and leadership to hold power over ex-offenders. This

differential in power is only exacerbated by the general census of the population that ex-

offenders have no place within society. Clearly, the Noel hypothesis can be applied to ex-

offenders as a minority group.

Generally, when the word discrimination comes into play, society immediately thinks of

skin color or gender. Discrimination appears in many different forms and can certainly apply to

ex-offenders. Institutional discrimination is built into everyday society and is both overt and

covert. The unequal treatment of ex-offenders in education, social services, healthcare, labor

market and criminal justice system constitutes as institutional discrimination. Most often modern

institutional discrimination plays a larger role in the lives of ex-offenders. An example of this

phenomena would be leasing regulations within the housing industry. There are no laws in place

in the United States that implies that ex-offenders have lost their right to compete for housing in

any market. (Sex offenders would be an exception.) Multi-family housing institutions believe

that their tenants will be safer if they refuse occupancy to ex-offenders. This idea of safety will

keep the occupancy rate higher, which in return will result in more profits for the owners of the

properties. This form of discrimination would be considered covert or subtle. Reagan’s war on

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 7

drugs and the controversial Three Strikes laws are still affecting ex-offenders decades later.

Policies such as these exist for one reason, to keep minority groups powerless and to give more

power to the majority group. Neither of these policies has reduced crime, and in fact, America’s

prisons have grown exponentially. Both of these movements have sent more minorities to jail

than ever before and the ripple effect is seen through the growing numbers of ex-offenders

returning to society. When discriminatory practices from the past cause discrimination in the

present, past-in-present institutional discrimination has occurred.

Benefiting Groups

Elite and majority groups benefit from discrimination against ex-offenders. The Bureau

of Justice Statistics (2015) states; “an estimated two-thirds of prisoners released in 2005 were

arrested for a new crime within three years. More than three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested

within five years. More than one-third (37 percent) were arrested within six months of their

release from prison, and more than half (57 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.

The study covers 405,000 prisoners released by 30 states in 2005.” These statistics show that

there is an issue regarding the laws and social stigmas against ex-offenders. These restrictions

make it harder to rebuild relationships, find/maintain employment, and stay away from criminal

activity. Lack of income and stress from societal transitions are both major factors in the

increasing return rate of prisoners. Why has the United States disregarded any attempt to provide

re-entry services to ex-offenders? Money is the answer. Since the 1980’s private prisons have

grown twentyfold with two major corporations leading the way, Corrections Corporations of

America and the GEO Group. Corrections Corporation of America has a capacity of more than

80,000 beds in 65 correctional facilities. The GEO Group operates 57 facilities with a capacity of

49,000 offender beds. Further statistics show that as of 2013, there were 133,000 state and

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 8

federal prisoners housed in privately owned prisons in the US, constituting 8.4% of the overall

U.S. prison population. The private prison industry as a whole, took in over $5 billion in revenue

in 2011 (Isaacs 2014) Major investors in the prison industry include Wells Fargo, Bank of

America, Fidelity Investments, General Electric and The Vanguard Group. The federal, state,

and local governments are responsible for the remaining 91.6% of the prison population at a cost

of $56.9 billion, some of which is passed on to taxpayers. (Church 2015) While private prisons

make over $5 billion dollars, our nation’s economy is stretched to the limit. The industry is

aware of what reduced crime rates could mean to their bottom line. “This from the Corrections

Corporation of America's SEC report in 2010: Our growth … depends on a number of factors we

cannot control, including crime rates …reductions in crime rates … could lead to reductions in

arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.” (Shapiro

2013) When ex-offenders are unable to find jobs, homes, or the much needed social services

upon release, they often re-offend and return to prison. Private prisons profit with each new

inmate that arrives.

Prisons have gradually become a source of low-wage labor for corporations seeking to

outsource work to inmates. “About 18% of eligible prisoners held in federal prisons are

employed by Unicor and are paid less than $1.25 an hour.” (James, 2007) “Corporations that

utilize prison labor include Walmart, Eddie Bauer, Victoria's Secret, Microsoft, Starbucks,

McDonald's, Nintendo, Chevron Corporation, Bank of America, Koch Industries, Boeing and

Costco Wholesale.” (McCormick 2012) When large corporations use the low wage labor of

inmates they are able to save millions of dollars, therefore increasing their bottom line. Just like

the private prison industry, these corporations lobby for more restrictive laws on punishment,

longer sentencing laws, and time served maximums. Corporations that use prison labor, need

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 9

incarceration rates to stay high, and they need prisoners to stay longer or even worse, return

quickly through recidivism.

A final group that profits from discrimination against ex-offenders is the government of

the United States. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015) stated that non-Hispanic blacks

accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009. Currently, blacks comprise

13.6% of the United States population. When considering all ethnic groups, the black population

is the largest, and therefore make up the largest portion of people incarcerated in United States

prisons and jails. It appears that the United States is still supporting du jure segregation in a

covert manner. The sentencing disparity between white and black people has taken a large

percentage of black men off the streets and put them behind bars. Upon release, they are stripped

of the most basic civil rights. The primary concern is the loss of voting rights. Taking away a

voting rights from a large segment of a minority group, which has historically suffered from

discrimination, simply enforces vicious cycles of prejudice. If a large proportion of black men

are not able to vote, how will their voice be heard in regards to matters that directly affect them?

Continuance of Social Issue

Before ex-offenders can pursue all of the same liberties afforded to citizens of the United

States, many changes will need to take place. While the United States justice system has

traditionally focused its efforts on locking people up, it has not exerted an equal effort at

decreasing the likelihood of reoffending among formerly incarcerated persons. This is a

significant issue due to the current rates of recidivism in the United States. After release from

physical incarceration, ex-offenders find themselves entering into a second prison where they

have to tear down the invisible walls formed by social stigma, fear and distrust from society.

Recidivism rates will remain high as long as discrimination continues in the ex-offender’s social

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 10

environment and within federal and state level policies. A large majority of offenders inter the

prison system from the urban underclass. The lack of human capital upon entry and release plays

a large role in their ability to integrate back into society. The human capital theory considers

success to be a direct result of individual efforts, personal values and skills and education.

(Healey 2014) In the case of ex-offenders, their aptitude to exist within this theory is gravely

effected by institutional discrimination. Both modern and past-in-present institutional

discrimination play a large role in the ex-offenders ability to achieve a modicum of success in

relation to the myth of the American dream. The author firmly believes that ex-offenders play a

large role in the very fabric of society. In a capitalist society, an underclass must be present in

order for the economy to stay afloat. Much in the same way, America needs a population of ex-

offenders to keep producing new offenders, which in turn, will provide a secondary labor market.

This pool of labor has become crucial in obtaining and maintaining profit within the prison

system. Additionally, with overt and covert discrimination embedded firmly in our society, ex-

offenders lack the education, resources and power to fully integrate into society. In the author’s

opinion, discrimination against ex-offenders will continue as long as society and government

find this population useful in their current state.

Finding a Solution to Ex-Offender Discrimination

In order for discrimination against ex-offenders to end, two groups must be involved;

federal, state and local governments, and society as a whole. The civil liberties afforded to all

free men by the United States Constitution must be recognized and regularly applied to ex-

offenders. An ex-offenders’ right to vote must be reinstated so that they may have a voice in

implementing change regarding government sanctioned discrimination. Covert discrimination in

housing, education, and employment must be eradicated. The issue of recidivism needs to be

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 11

addressed. No longer should there be benefits to government, corporations and consumers

dependent on the number of people that are incarcerated. All of these changes involve a

complete overhaul of the societal values concerning justice, punishment, and second chances.

How then should we implement pragmatic solutions to alleviate the discrimination against ex-

offenders? Grass root organizations such as, Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, The

Center for Effective Government, Black Lives Matter, You Have Rights Too, Human Rights

Watch, ACLU, NAACP, Center for Constitutional Rights, and United States Human Rights

Project are waging daily battles in local, state and federal government to obliterate

discriminatory practices against ex-offenders. The battle does not end here. Supporters of ex-

offenders must lobby at local and state levels to increase the presence and quality of community-

based organizations that provide post-release/reentry services that will assist ex-offenders to

integrate back into society. Federal and state prisons must increase the presence and quality of

pre-release services, within their facilities, that address factors such as drug-related criminality,

addiction treatment, mental health counseling and education programs/vocational training. Both

of these solutions would garner immediate results in the percentage of ex-offenders returning to

prison. Generally, any program that involves service provisions for individuals convicted of

crime will face significant pushback. Corporations reliant on prison populations for profit, and a

society that often views special treatment, such as mental health, rehabilitation and educational

services as privileges for those who are undeserving, will be prove to be great enemies of

change. If discrimination against ex-offenders does not end, inequality will continue to exist in

our society. If society continues to support the discrimination of ex-offenders, what group will be

under attack next? Will it be women, children, immigrants, veterans, mentally ill, and the

disabled. Perhaps past-in-present institutional discrimination against older minority groups has

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 12

paved the way for discrimination against new groups, such as ex-offenders. As a nation we must

find practical solutions to end discrimination against all groups before we can focus on just one.

American citizens are ultimately responsible for discriminatory practices against others. Daily

discrimination directed at each other, discrimination in housing, education and employment, and

voting for laws that enhance discrimination are responsibilities that must be shouldered by each

and every citizen. Placing people in positions of authority that profit from advancement of

discrimination, are direct results of our personal voting choices. Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi said it

best, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” This change must occur within the

hearts and minds of each us, before we can transcend centuries of discrimination that are

established in America.

Conclusion

Society has produced all the current forms of discrimination that effect ex-offenders. The

United States criminal justice system is organic, and therefore; rooted in society. Crime is no

different, it is woven into the very fabric of America. “Friedman (1993) decries the politicians'

shrill response to the problem as "punitive, irrational, and ineffective." Building more prisons

and putting more people in them is an exercise in futility. An important lesson from the past is

that the source of crime lies not in weakness in the criminal justice system but in the thoughts

and actions of society. The criminal justice system is fragmented, and Americans are unwilling

to have it any other way. Since the criminal justice system is organic, and ebbs and flows with

changes in our society, it would be logical to state that the discrimination of ex-offenders is

formed in much this same way. The plague of discrimination borne by ex-offenders, creates

undue misery. Society must consider not only the ex-offender, but the families that are involved

as well. Children of ex-offenders are often stigmatized by society. These children grow up under

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 13

the umbrella of discrimination and most often become offenders themselves. Generational

discrimination provides an unyielding force in the cycle of crime, punishment and rehabilitation.

Societies’ continual discrimination against ex-offenders is a high price to pay for personal

liberty. It is a cost that is unfairly distributed. The author fears that our country is likely to bump

along more or less as we are. For now there may be nothing to do but grit our teeth and pay the

price. “Friedman (1993) asserts that contemporary crime is best explained in terms of exaltation

of the self, a twentieth century pathology." Perhaps these words, more than any other, give a

name to discrimination of ex-offenders. In our current society more, more, and more is the cry of

our nation. The United States government has set the standard for how to get more. They forcibly

take it from a weaker, less powerful entity. When ex-offenders suffer discrimination at the hand

of a larger, more powerful, dominant group, society believes this treatment to be fair and just.

America has taught her citizens well.

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 14

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2015. “Recidivism” Statistics, 2015. Washington DC: Bureau of

Justice Statistics Retrieved on August 3, 2015 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=

pbdetail&iid=4987).

Church Publishing. 2015. “White Paper Security Insert: 50 States’ Departments of Corrections."

White Paper on Security. Church Publishing February2, 2015. Retrieved on August 2,

2015 (http://church-publishing.com/non-fiction).

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2015. “Our History”. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Retrieved on August 2, 2015 (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history).

Lawrence Friedman. 1993 “Crime and Punishment in American History.” New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Lauren E. Glaze and Danielle Kaeble. 2014. “Correctional Populations in the United States

2013.” Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistic. Retrieved July 10, 2015

(http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid).

Joseph F. Healey. 2014. Diversity and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Caroline Isaacs. 2014. “Treatment Industrial Complex: How For-Profit Prison Corporations are

Undermining Efforts to Treat and Rehabilitate Prisoners for Corporate Gain.” American

Friends Service Committee. Retrieved August 3, 2015 (www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.

Civicactions.net/files/document/TIC_report_online.pdf).

James W. Lowen. 1995. Lies My Teacher Told Me. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Simon McCormick. 2012. “Prison Labor Booms As Unemployment Remains High; Companies

Reap Benefits.” The Huffington Post December 10, 2012. Retrieved August 4, 2015

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html).

SILENT DISCRIMINATION: NAVIGATING REENTRY 15

Nathan James. 2007. “Federal Prison Industries” Congressional Research Service. Retrieved

August 4, 2015 (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32380.pdf).

David Shapiro. 2013. "Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration."

American Civil Liberties Union. New York, NY. Retrieved August 3, 2015 (https://www.aclu.

org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf).

Williams, Timothy. 2015. “Jails Have Become Warehouses for the Poor, Ill and

Addicted, a Report Says.” The New York Times, February 11, pp. A19. Retrieved July 10, 2015

(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/us/jails-havebecome-warehouses-for-the-poor-ill-and-

addicted-a- report-says.html).