Maya Schenwar's article sounds like a chapter from Orwell's 1984.
But in our world, Big Brother is actually the Ruling Classes Puppets.
We seem to forget that there is a good reason for such electronic
monitoring and incarceration of minor law breakers, of Color. These
are methods used by Masters to keep their servants/slaves in line.
How many of the 1% Ruling Class are cooling their heels in prisons or
confined to house arrest? Really! If we were truly all equal under
the Law, odds would favor at least a small percentage of the Ruling
Class would be paying their debt for crimes committed.
carl Jarvis
On 1/19/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
> America Has Become One Giant Prison
> ________________________________________
> America Has Become One Giant Prison
> By Maya Schenwar [1] / TomDispatch [2]
> January 18, 2015
> To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the
> latest updates from TomDispatch.com here [3].
> On January 27th, domestic violence survivor Marissa Alexander will walk out
> of Florida's Duval County jail -- but she won't be free.
> Alexander, whose case has gained some notoriety, endured three years of
> jail
> time and a year of house arrest while fighting off a prison sentence that
> would have seen her incarcerated for the rest of her life -- all for firing
> a warning shot [4] that injured no one to fend off her abusive husband.
> Like
> many black women [5] before her, Alexander was framed as a perpetrator in a
> clear case of self-defense. In November, as her trial date drew close,
> Alexander accepted a plea deal that will likely give her credit for time
> served, requiring her to spend "just" 65 more days in jail. Media coverage
> of the development suggested that Alexander would soon have her "freedom,"
> that she would be "coming home."
> Many accounts of the plea deal, however, missed what Alexander will be
> coming home to: she'll return to "home detention" -- house arrest -- for
> two
> years.
> In other words, an electronic monitor, secured around her ankle at all
> times, will track her every movement. Alexander will also be paying $105
> per
> week to the state in monitoring fees, as is the custom in Florida [6] and
> more than a dozen [7] other states.
> Such a situation is certainly preferable to being caged in a prison cell.
> However, does Alexander's release -- and that of others in her shoes --
> mean
> freedom? In reality, an ever-growing number of cages are proliferating
> around us, even if they assume forms that look nothing like our standard
> idea of a cage.
> As mass incarceration is falling out of fashion -- it's been denounced by
> figures across the political spectrum from Eric Holder [8] to Newt Gingrich
> [9] -- a whole slate of "alternatives to incarceration" has arisen. From
> electronic monitoring and debilitating forms of probation to mandatory drug
> testing and the sort of "predictive policing" that turns communities of
> color into open-air prisons, these alternatives are regularly presented as
> necessary "reforms" for a broken system.
> It's worth remembering, however, that when the modern prison emerged in the
> late eighteenth century, it, too, was promoted as a "reform [10]," a
> positive replacement for corporal or capital punishment. Early prison
> reformers -- many of them Quakers bent on repentance and redemption --
> suggested that cutting people off from the rest of the world would bring
> them closer to God. (The word "penitentiary" comes, of course, from
> "penitence [11].")
> An oppressive version of surveillance played a central role in this vision,
> as in British reformer Jeremy Bentham's famed Panopticon, a model prison in
> which inspectors would be able to view prisoners at any moment, day or
> night, while themselves remaining invisible. If the ultimate Panopticon
> [12] never quite came into existence, Bentham's idea profoundly influenced
> the development of the prison as a place in which, for the prisoner, no
> time
> or space was inviolable and privacy was a fiction.
> As an idea, the Panopticon remains embedded in our notion of state
> discipline. Now, it is spreading out of the prison and into the
> neighborhood
> and the home, which is hardly surprising in a society in which surveillance
> [13] and monitoring [14] are becoming the accepted norms of everyday life.
> Like the plans of the early reformers, many current prison "reforms" share
> a
> common element: they perpetuate the fantasy that new forms of confinement,
> isolation, and surveillance will somehow set us all free.
> At first glance, these alternatives may seem like a "win-win." Instead of
> taking place in a hellish institution, prison happens "in the comfort of
> your own home" (the ultimate American ad for anything). However, this
> change
> threatens to transform the very definition of "home" into one in which
> privacy, and possibly "comfort" as well, are subtracted from the equation.
> Perhaps the best example is the electronic monitor, an imprisonment device
> that is attached to the body at all times.
> Electronic Monitoring
> House arrest has long been used to quell political resistance. By confining
> people to their homes, repressive governments are able to weaken an
> oppositional figure's ties to the world, while allowing the authorities to
> know where the confined person is at every moment. From St. Paul to the
> deposed pro-democracy Iranian president Mohammad Mosaddegh, Galileo to
> Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, dissidents and nonconformists have long watched
> their homes become their prisons.
> However, the rise of new technologies -- in particular, electronic
> monitoring -- has allowed the practice of home confinement to become
> widespread. Nowadays, if you're under house arrest, there are no longer
> armed guards circling the premises. Instead, the "guards" are satellites,
> their gaze always present, and they don't even blink.
> Appropriately enough, electronic monitoring was introduced in 1984 [15].
> Since then, it has been used for an ever-expanding range of purposes,
> including pretrial confinement, parole, and probation, or simply as a
> punishment in and of itself. Monitoring has put new populations under state
> control, expanding the range of people who are confined in this country.
> According to an analysis [16] in the Journal of Law and Policy, most of
> those placed on electronic monitors haven't committed serious or violent
> offenses and, were it not for monitoring, "at least some of these
> populations would not in fact be incarcerated or otherwise under physical
> control."
> In prison, the loss of one's civil liberties is glaringly apparent. The
> strip search, the cell sweep, and the surveillance of letters, phone calls,
> and visits are givens. For those whose homes have been "prisonized,"
> however, basic constitutional rights also crumble. Probationers and
> monitorees are subject to warrantless searches [17] and drug tests;
> probation officers have ready access to their homes. In fact, though seldom
> thought of this way, the ankle monitor is essentially a constant,
> warrantless search.
> As research scholar James Kilgore notes, [18] for those being monitored,
> "the default position in most instances is house arrest" and therefore
> they're often more restricted than their counterparts in jails and prisons.
> Incarcerated people have daily quotas for calories and are usually granted
> a
> certain amount of outdoor exercise time (however miserable the food or
> outdoor facilities may be). Under house arrest, neither of those
> protections
> apply. Similarly, prisoners are usually granted the right to access legal
> materials; this guarantee is not a given for monitored people.
> Even probation officers have acknowledged how monitoring -- both the actual
> physical confinement and the constant knowledge of being watched -- seeps
> into each moment of a confined person's daily life. A Department of Justice
> study [15], for example, found that, with the visible ankle monitor acting
> as a "scarlet letter," those permitted to go to work had a difficult time
> finding or holding jobs. That's a problem in itself, since it's well known
> that gaining employment is a crucial step [19] in avoiding future offenses.
> Full-scale house arrest, however, locks people into a life of stasis and
> boredom, inhibiting their ability to connect with loved ones or form new
> bonds -- crucial factors in building a sustainable life.
> Eighty-nine percent of probation officers surveyed by the Justice
> Department
> felt that "offenders' relationships with their significant others changed
> because of being monitored." Both officers and those monitored observed
> that
> the ankle band had a distinct impact on children. As one parent testified,
> "When it beeps, the kids worry about whether the probation officer is
> coming
> to take me to jail. The kids run for it when it beeps." Another noted that
> his child repeatedly strapped a watch around his ankle "to be like Daddy."
> Beyond the physical and emotional burdens, those under monitoring often pay
> for their confinement in the most literal possible fashion. As Marissa
> Alexander discovered in Florida, private companies often exact fees from
> the
> people they're imprisoning. They average around $10-$15 per day [20] -- in
> addition to installation costs and fees imposed for drug tests or other
> "services." Those unable to pay may be re-incarcerated in a cycle that
> harkens back to debtor's prison.
> By the end of her sentence, Alexander will have spent $16,420 on her own
> imprisonment and constant surveillance.
> Probation and Drug Testing
> You don't, however, have to be hooked up to a fancy monitoring device to
> find yourself paying for your confinement. As probation is increasingly
> contracted out [21] to private companies -- in Georgia, for example, 40% of
> probation services are privatized -- many non-monitored probationers are
> subject to steep fees and failure to pay such probation costs might also
> result in jail time.
> This phenomenon, dubbed "offender-funded probation" has recently become
> ever
> more popular. A 2014 report [22] by Human Rights Watch revealed that 1,000
> courts in at least 12 states now employ it in a twisted mix of
> budget-tightening, privatization, and corporatization. As author and
> organizer Kay Whitlock writes [23], "This industry is built upon disdain
> for
> poor and low-income people, and a determination that their wretchedly
> limited resources should not only support the illusion of administration of
> justice but simultaneously provide private business owners and courts with
> new revenue."
> With nearly four million people [24] on probation in this country, what an
> increasingly "offender-funded" system would look like is coming into focus:
> state coffers would be filled with dollars from those with the most meager
> resources, while the threat ofdebtor's prison [25] would hang over the
> heads
> of those who don't or simply can't comply. In addition, despite their
> rhetoric about "correction" and "rehabilitation," for-profit enterprises
> are
> actually driven by the distinctly for-profit urge to keep people in the
> system [25], while bringing in ever more of them.
> In addition to monitoring and probation, mandated drug tests are another
> standard item that can be turned into a cash cow. Most people ensnared in
> the criminal justice system (whether incarcerated or on supervised release
> [26]) are required to undergo regular drug testing, regardless of whether
> their offense is drug-related [27]. Companies now charge [22] about $25 per
> test, meaning that a person serving a year-long probation sentence is
> likely
> to be saddled with a $1,250 drug-testing bill.
> Moreover, drug testing is helping to expand the criminal system into new
> areas of society. Thanks to decades of drug-war policies, the tests have
> entered [27] schools, hospitals, workplaces, and the welfare system -- and
> testing positive can result in serious punishment, including surveillance
> and confinement. One in five [28] high schools now use drug tests and many
> punish a "dirty drop" with loss of extracurricular activities or even
> expulsion from school.
> As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted [29] decades ago, "there are
> few
> activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of
> urine." Yet in many circumstances, from workplaces [30] to law enforcement
> probation [31] visits, people being tested are not only listened [32] to,
> but also watched as they urinate. The Minnesota Department of Corrections,
> for instance, gives these instructions [33] to its probation and parole
> staff: "Staff must... position himself/herself in such a manner as to
> verify
> the specimen passes directly from the offender's body into the specimen
> collection container."
> Such drug tests are also used by child protective services agencies during
> home visits to surveil parents, overwhelmingly mothers of color and
> particularly black mothers [34]. A failed drug test may result in the
> removal of children from the home -- regardless of whether the drug use is
> affecting the parenting abilities of the user.
> During the drug-war years, unlike the other ways in which we relate to our
> bodies and our health, drug use has become fair game for policing and state
> surveillance. No state intervention can mandate that you stop eating gluten
> or quit smoking cigarettes or undergo chemotherapy, but we have come to
> accept the idea that outside authorities may monitor, control, and punish
> your choice to use certain drugs -- and rampant drug testing is a graphic
> manifestation of that. Like any health-related blood or urine test, drug
> testing is not inherently bad, but its widespread, mandatory, and invasive
> deployment by the state is unique among health procedures. It is the only
> routine medical test that can land you in jail.
> As public approval of drug-war-fueled mass incarceration ebbs, however,
> it's
> important to remember that the drug "battlefield" now extends well beyond
> the prison and that privacy violations once reserved [35] for jails and
> drug
> treatment centers are now common in places where privacy was once a given.
> Predictive Policing
> Perhaps the most prevalent prison-outside-of-prison version of
> incarceration
> happens before, not after, arrest. It's what anti-police-violence activist
> Joseph "Jazz" Hayden calls "open-air prisons [36]" -- that is, the
> intensification of policing and surveillance in poor neighborhoods of
> color.
> As a growing national movement has made clear recently, in many black and
> brown communities police are a feared source of violence, not an answer to
> it. A recent Pew survey [37] showed that black Americans are much less
> likely than whites to believe that police protect them from crime. Only
> 31%
> of black respondents believed that the police were "good" or "excellent" at
> protecting their safety and for just 6% were they "good" at "using the
> right
> amount of force for each situation."
> Yet when right-wing advocates against mass incarceration opt for a new
> approach, they tend to support approaches that lead to identifying certain
> areas (homes, blocks, schools, neighborhoods) as "crime hotspots [38]," and
> cramming them with law enforcement and surveillance. Right on Crime, a
> Texas-based "prison reform" group which Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, and many
> other conservative luminaries promote, calls for using money saved from
> reducing prison populations to expand "data-driven policing [39]" and, in
> the process, increase the use of electronic monitoring and private security
> firms.
> Case in point: a method called "predictive policing" is increasingly
> gaining
> favor with right-wing "reformers." Appropriately enough, as reporter Aaron
> Cantú documents, [40] the very concept was birthed by a private company
> called PredPol [41]. As the ACLU of Massachusetts notes [42], this
> technique
> "essentially applies the Total Information Awareness approach to policing."
> That means drawing upon large pools of surveillance, arrest, and other data
> to develop "algorithms" to determine when and where a crime might happen in
> the future. The use of historical arrest data ensures, of course, that
> police presences will intensify in places that are already most heavily
> patrolled and where the most arrests occur: poor neighborhoods of color.
> As that ACLU report observes:
> "If police arrested lots of bankers and lawyers for cocaine use and for
> hiring expensive sex workers, we might see predictive policing algorithms
> sending cops to patrol rich suburbs or fancy hotels in downtown areas.
> Instead, the algorithms simply reproduce the unjust policing system we've
> got."
> In recent years, as the barriers between local law enforcement and the
> country's intelligence agencies have broken down, opportunities for
> race-based targeting [43] within communities have multiplied. For example,
> under the banner of counterterrorism, national and local outfits have
> colluded in intensifying the surveillance of Arabs and Muslims. The
> Electronic Frontier Foundation notes [43] the dissemination of "suspicious
> activity reports [14]" through national police and intelligence networks
> with titles like "Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern] Males Buy Several Large
> Pallets of Water." In this way, "predicting" crime falls in line with
> racial
> and religious profiling.
> Current applications of the "predictive policing" strategy usually involve
> expanding surveillance and data collection and increasing the number of
> police clustered in certain locations. However, the predictive software may
> be used in more aggressive ways in the future. In Albuquerque, for example,
> police have begun using the software to flag "bait" items [44], such as
> copper wire and cars, placing them in targeted neighborhoods. If the items
> are taken, arrests can be made on the spot or police can continue to track
> them (and the people who've taken them), enlarging the area that is
> directly
> surveilled.
> Even some of the "reforms" being proposed in response to racist police
> violence carry the potential to be used against the public in ways that
> expand the bounds of who is watched and when. The body cameras that
> President Obama proposes all police wear face outward [45]. As
> constitutional lawyer Shahid Buttar notes, they monitor anyone who crosses
> their path, including people suspected of no crime, "without the individual
> basis for suspicion constitutionally required to justify a police search."
> Buttar warns that this uptick in public surveillance could actually fuel
> incarceration. Constant video footage means more opportunities to convict
> people of the small "crimes" occurring all the time, from jaywalking to
> selling loose cigarettes to causing a public disturbance. The more
> convictions, the more potential for punishment -- and the more
> opportunities
> for confinement.
> Sex Offender Registries
> Although the left-leaning among us may respond to secret data collection
> and
> hidden cameras with a visceral aversion, some other strategies that cage
> people are not so firmly installed on the list of liberal no-nos.
> Electronic
> monitoring, house arrest, and targeted policing number among these. Another
> such mechanism generally condoned or even championed by liberals is the sex
> offender registry. Yet placement on a registry is a sure ticket to
> imprisonment-outside-of-prison, sometimes for life. In most states, the
> minimum duration [46] before you can get off a sex offender registry is at
> least a decade; in some states, it's forever.
> In 2013, Sable, an incarcerated Pennsylvania woman and mother of three
> young
> children, was gearing up for release. Three years earlier, when she was 24,
> she had been convicted of "statutory sexual assault" -- carrying on a
> sexual
> relationship with a 15-year-old boy. In some ways, she was looking forward
> to leaving prison. In others, she was dreading it.
> Release, she wrote me, would look nothing like freedom. She would, she
> explained [47], be required to avoid cell phones and the Internet. She'd be
> banned from contact with minors -- including her own children. Beyond these
> tangible restrictions, she was terrified of a more amorphous kind of
> imprisonment, what she referred to as "the stigma I will live with for the
> next 22 years." In Pennsylvania, anyone convicted of a sex offense spends
> the next quarter-century on a sex offender registry. She anticipated the
> fear, rejection, or even violence she might face from neighbors,
> prospective
> employers, and possible friends.
> Sex offender registries are a relatively recent phenomenon. They became
> widespread in the 1990s in the wake of several high-profile abductions,
> rapes, and murders of children. Though there's no evidence [48] that the
> registries actually prevent sexual assault, they now exist in every state
> and have been codified into federal law.
> To question their use is not to diminish the gravity of sexual violence.
> Rather, their lack of effectiveness in assault prevention, their grounding
> premise that ongoing punishment is appropriate long after imprisonment has
> ended, and their gathering up of those convicted of a wide range of
> offenses
> -- from sex work [49] (as outlined by scholar Erica Meiners) to the receipt
> of pornography [50] -- should give us pause, no matter how distasteful many
> of the registrants' crimes may be.
> In numerous states, the whole registry is available for search on the
> Internet, complete with mug shots and addresses. In some states, that
> includes juveniles.
> Josh Gravens, a prison reform activist and Soros Justice Advocacy Fellow,
> was arrested at age 12 for having had sexual contact with his
> eight-year-old
> sister. He recently wrote [51] in the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
> that, despite three and a half years in juvenile prison and four years on
> parole, "by far the worst penalty I experienced was being placed on the
> Texas Sex Offender Registry." As an adult, Gravens faced evictions, a
> near-impossible quest for employment, and a giant, pervasive stigma against
> him and his family. "As it stands today," he writes, "the registry harms
> far
> more children than it protects."
> As monitoring and intrusion become more prevalent, they are normalized and
> become expectable, built into the fabric of how we relate to other human
> beings. If allowed to expand, sooner or later they also are likely to add
> categories of people who are not as easily dismissed by mainstream culture.
> In a world of electronic monitors, predictive policing, interagency data
> sharing, hidden cameras, and registries, imprisonment extends not only
> beyond the walls of the jail or penitentiary, but beyond any contained
> space. In the new world of incarceration, your house is your prison. Your
> block is your prison. Your school is your prison. Your neighborhood... your
> city... your state... your country is your prison.
>
> Share on Facebook Share
> Share on Twitter Tweet
> Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@alternet.org'. [52]
> [53]
> ________________________________________
> Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/america-has-become-one-giant-prison
> Links:
> [1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/maya-schenwar-0
> [2] http://www.tomdispatch.com/
> [3]
> http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73
> &id=1e41682ade
> [4]
> http://www.thenation.com/blog/178641/marissa-alexander-now-faces-60-years-pr
> ison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense
> [5]
> https://niastories.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/no-selves-to-defend-curriculum-f
> or-marissa-alexander-teach-in/
> [6]
> http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/FloridaF&
> ;F.pdf
> [7]
> http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/probationers_prison_privatized_su
> pervision_becomes_a_spiral_of_added_fees_j
> [8]
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2014/02/an_interview_with_
> eric_holder049026.php
> [9]
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0917-gingrich-prop--47-criminal-j
> ustice-20140917-story.html
> [10] http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/qkh/summary/v097/97.2.graber.html
> [11]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=awrOHv-gtqQC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&
> dq=quaker+reformers+prison+penitence&source=bl&ots=mB8HOKe5I-&si
> g=975kKQoYWugnD7v2Du6AdMOYlew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=msmSVP28MuLZ7gadooGo
> Dg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=quaker%20reformers%20prison%20peniten
> ce&f=false
> [12]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=XT9gEDKOOuwC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&am
> p;dq=bentham+solitary+confinement+surveillance&source=bl&ots=lrfym6G
> HDe&sig=rQAan76HGVbejMG35cUGAxxivhc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k8qSVKmeLs
> jQ7Abak4CYDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bentham%20solitary%20confin
> ement%20surveillance&f=false
> [13]
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175822/tomgram%3A_crump_and_harwood,_the_net
> _closes_around_us/
> [14]
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175919/tomgram%3A_shamsi_and_harwood,_an_ele
> ctronic_archipelago_of_domestic_surveillance/
> [15] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/234460.pdf
> [16]
> http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1582&contex
> t=law_journal_law_policy
> [17]
> http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawr
> eview
> [18]
> http://truth-out.org/news/item/25232-the-spread-of-electronic-monitoring-no-
> quick-fix-for-mass-incarceration
> [19] http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_post-release.pdf
> [20]
> https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2012/mar/15/electronic-monitoring-some-
> causes-for-concern/
> [21]
> https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/court-sanctione
> d-extortion-private-probation-companies
> [22] http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0214_ForUpload_0.pdf
> [23]
> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27555-community-corrections-profiteeri
> ng-corruption-and-widening-the-net%20%22
> [24] http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5135
> [25]
> http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/TIC_report_onlin
> e.pdf
> [26]
> http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/11-04-01/Drug_Testing_Often_a_Pa
> rt_of_Supervised_Release.aspx
> [27] http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-testing-policies
> [28]
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/after-school-special-positive-school-climate-not
> -drug-tests-might-deter-use-among-high-schoolers
> [29] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/602
> [30] http://workrights.us/?products=drug-testing-in-the-workplace
> [31] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/181103.pdf
> [32] http://ssdp.org/campaigns/student-drug-testing/talking-points/
> [33]
> http://www.doc.state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?Opt=205.231.h
> tm
> [34] http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/ruddick.htm
> [35]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=8ClVvgD_EIIC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&
> dq=1980s+drug+testing+%22direct+observation%22&source=bl&ots=9bkHubo
> -de&sig=5XMGAgaTatmMjq3h1OkT5f9bsr4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tZKhVL-lGo
> K3yQSqkIKYAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1980s%20drug%20testing%20%2
> 2direct%20observation%22&f=false
> [36] http://www.alternet.org/books/what-if-we-abolished-prisons
> [37]
> http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/25/few-say-police-forces-nationally-do-w
> ell-in-treating-races-equally/
> [38]
> http://www.rightoncrime.com/reform-in-action/state-initiatives/new-york/over
> view/
> [39] http://www.rightoncrime.com/priority-issues/law-enforcement/
> [40]
> http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24396-beyond-drones-and-stop-and-frisk
> [41]
> http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/all-tomorrows-crimes-the-future-of-poli
> cing-looks-a-lot-like-good-branding/Content?oid=2827968
> [42] https://www.privacysos.org/predictive
> [43] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq#9
> [44]
> http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Leadership/futu
> re%20trends%20in%20policing%202014.pdf
> [45]
> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28357-police-violence-body-cams-are-no
> -solution
> [46]
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/sex_of
> fender_registry_laws_by_state_mapped.html
> [47]
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Locked_Down_Locked_Out.html?id=VVZCngEAC
> AAJ
> [48] http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658483
> [49] http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/13-worst-of-the-worst/
> [50]
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-extein-msw/capitol-punishment-the-tr_b_
> 4756400.html
> [51]
> http://jjie.org/op-ed-for-a-child-sex-offender-once-online-always-online/108
> 002/comment-page-1/
> [52] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on America Has Become One
> Giant Prison
> [53] http://www.alternet.org/
> [54] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
>
> Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
> Home > America Has Become One Giant Prison
>
> America Has Become One Giant Prison
> By Maya Schenwar [1] / TomDispatch [2]
> January 18, 2015
> To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the
> latest updates from TomDispatch.com here [3].
> On January 27th, domestic violence survivor Marissa Alexander will walk out
> of Florida's Duval County jail -- but she won't be free.
> Alexander, whose case has gained some notoriety, endured three years of
> jail
> time and a year of house arrest while fighting off a prison sentence that
> would have seen her incarcerated for the rest of her life -- all for firing
> a warning shot [4] that injured no one to fend off her abusive husband.
> Like
> many black women [5] before her, Alexander was framed as a perpetrator in a
> clear case of self-defense. In November, as her trial date drew close,
> Alexander accepted a plea deal that will likely give her credit for time
> served, requiring her to spend "just" 65 more days in jail. Media coverage
> of the development suggested that Alexander would soon have her "freedom,"
> that she would be "coming home."
> Many accounts of the plea deal, however, missed what Alexander will be
> coming home to: she'll return to "home detention" -- house arrest -- for
> two
> years.
> In other words, an electronic monitor, secured around her ankle at all
> times, will track her every movement. Alexander will also be paying $105
> per
> week to the state in monitoring fees, as is the custom in Florida [6] and
> more than a dozen [7] other states.
> Such a situation is certainly preferable to being caged in a prison cell.
> However, does Alexander's release -- and that of others in her shoes --
> mean
> freedom? In reality, an ever-growing number of cages are proliferating
> around us, even if they assume forms that look nothing like our standard
> idea of a cage.
> As mass incarceration is falling out of fashion -- it's been denounced by
> figures across the political spectrum from Eric Holder [8] to Newt Gingrich
> [9] -- a whole slate of "alternatives to incarceration" has arisen. From
> electronic monitoring and debilitating forms of probation to mandatory drug
> testing and the sort of "predictive policing" that turns communities of
> color into open-air prisons, these alternatives are regularly presented as
> necessary "reforms" for a broken system.
> It's worth remembering, however, that when the modern prison emerged in the
> late eighteenth century, it, too, was promoted as a "reform [10]," a
> positive replacement for corporal or capital punishment. Early prison
> reformers -- many of them Quakers bent on repentance and redemption --
> suggested that cutting people off from the rest of the world would bring
> them closer to God. (The word "penitentiary" comes, of course, from
> "penitence [11].")
> An oppressive version of surveillance played a central role in this vision,
> as in British reformer Jeremy Bentham's famed Panopticon, a model prison in
> which inspectors would be able to view prisoners at any moment, day or
> night, while themselves remaining invisible. If the ultimate Panopticon
> [12]
> never quite came into existence, Bentham's idea profoundly influenced the
> development of the prison as a place in which, for the prisoner, no time or
> space was inviolable and privacy was a fiction.
> As an idea, the Panopticon remains embedded in our notion of state
> discipline. Now, it is spreading out of the prison and into the
> neighborhood
> and the home, which is hardly surprising in a society in which surveillance
> [13] and monitoring [14] are becoming the accepted norms of everyday life.
> Like the plans of the early reformers, many current prison "reforms" share
> a
> common element: they perpetuate the fantasy that new forms of confinement,
> isolation, and surveillance will somehow set us all free.
> At first glance, these alternatives may seem like a "win-win." Instead of
> taking place in a hellish institution, prison happens "in the comfort of
> your own home" (the ultimate American ad for anything). However, this
> change
> threatens to transform the very definition of "home" into one in which
> privacy, and possibly "comfort" as well, are subtracted from the equation.
> Perhaps the best example is the electronic monitor, an imprisonment device
> that is attached to the body at all times.
> Electronic Monitoring
> House arrest has long been used to quell political resistance. By confining
> people to their homes, repressive governments are able to weaken an
> oppositional figure's ties to the world, while allowing the authorities to
> know where the confined person is at every moment. From St. Paul to the
> deposed pro-democracy Iranian president Mohammad Mosaddegh, Galileo to
> Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, dissidents and nonconformists have long watched
> their homes become their prisons.
> However, the rise of new technologies -- in particular, electronic
> monitoring -- has allowed the practice of home confinement to become
> widespread. Nowadays, if you're under house arrest, there are no longer
> armed guards circling the premises. Instead, the "guards" are satellites,
> their gaze always present, and they don't even blink.
> Appropriately enough, electronic monitoring was introduced in 1984 [15].
> Since then, it has been used for an ever-expanding range of purposes,
> including pretrial confinement, parole, and probation, or simply as a
> punishment in and of itself. Monitoring has put new populations under state
> control, expanding the range of people who are confined in this country.
> According to an analysis [16] in the Journal of Law and Policy, most of
> those placed on electronic monitors haven't committed serious or violent
> offenses and, were it not for monitoring, "at least some of these
> populations would not in fact be incarcerated or otherwise under physical
> control."
> In prison, the loss of one's civil liberties is glaringly apparent. The
> strip search, the cell sweep, and the surveillance of letters, phone calls,
> and visits are givens. For those whose homes have been "prisonized,"
> however, basic constitutional rights also crumble. Probationers and
> monitorees are subject to warrantless searches [17] and drug tests;
> probation officers have ready access to their homes. In fact, though seldom
> thought of this way, the ankle monitor is essentially a constant,
> warrantless search.
> As research scholar James Kilgore notes, [18] for those being monitored,
> "the default position in most instances is house arrest" and therefore
> they're often more restricted than their counterparts in jails and prisons.
> Incarcerated people have daily quotas for calories and are usually granted
> a
> certain amount of outdoor exercise time (however miserable the food or
> outdoor facilities may be). Under house arrest, neither of those
> protections
> apply. Similarly, prisoners are usually granted the right to access legal
> materials; this guarantee is not a given for monitored people.
> Even probation officers have acknowledged how monitoring -- both the actual
> physical confinement and the constant knowledge of being watched -- seeps
> into each moment of a confined person's daily life. A Department of Justice
> study [15], for example, found that, with the visible ankle monitor acting
> as a "scarlet letter," those permitted to go to work had a difficult time
> finding or holding jobs. That's a problem in itself, since it's well known
> that gaining employment is a crucial step [19] in avoiding future offenses.
> Full-scale house arrest, however, locks people into a life of stasis and
> boredom, inhibiting their ability to connect with loved ones or form new
> bonds -- crucial factors in building a sustainable life.
> Eighty-nine percent of probation officers surveyed by the Justice
> Department
> felt that "offenders' relationships with their significant others changed
> because of being monitored." Both officers and those monitored observed
> that
> the ankle band had a distinct impact on children. As one parent testified,
> "When it beeps, the kids worry about whether the probation officer is
> coming
> to take me to jail. The kids run for it when it beeps." Another noted that
> his child repeatedly strapped a watch around his ankle "to be like Daddy."
> Beyond the physical and emotional burdens, those under monitoring often pay
> for their confinement in the most literal possible fashion. As Marissa
> Alexander discovered in Florida, private companies often exact fees from
> the
> people they're imprisoning. They average around $10-$15 per day [20] -- in
> addition to installation costs and fees imposed for drug tests or other
> "services." Those unable to pay may be re-incarcerated in a cycle that
> harkens back to debtor's prison.
> By the end of her sentence, Alexander will have spent $16,420 on her own
> imprisonment and constant surveillance.
> Probation and Drug Testing
> You don't, however, have to be hooked up to a fancy monitoring device to
> find yourself paying for your confinement. As probation is increasingly
> contracted out [21] to private companies -- in Georgia, for example, 40% of
> probation services are privatized -- many non-monitored probationers are
> subject to steep fees and failure to pay such probation costs might also
> result in jail time.
> This phenomenon, dubbed "offender-funded probation" has recently become
> ever
> more popular. A 2014 report [22] by Human Rights Watch revealed that 1,000
> courts in at least 12 states now employ it in a twisted mix of
> budget-tightening, privatization, and corporatization. As author and
> organizer Kay Whitlock writes [23], "This industry is built upon disdain
> for
> poor and low-income people, and a determination that their wretchedly
> limited resources should not only support the illusion of administration of
> justice but simultaneously provide private business owners and courts with
> new revenue."
> With nearly four million people [24] on probation in this country, what an
> increasingly "offender-funded" system would look like is coming into focus:
> state coffers would be filled with dollars from those with the most meager
> resources, while the threat ofdebtor's prison [25] would hang over the
> heads
> of those who don't or simply can't comply. In addition, despite their
> rhetoric about "correction" and "rehabilitation," for-profit enterprises
> are
> actually driven by the distinctly for-profit urge to keep people in the
> system [25], while bringing in ever more of them.
> In addition to monitoring and probation, mandated drug tests are another
> standard item that can be turned into a cash cow. Most people ensnared in
> the criminal justice system (whether incarcerated or on supervised release
> [26]) are required to undergo regular drug testing, regardless of whether
> their offense is drug-related [27]. Companies now charge [22] about $25 per
> test, meaning that a person serving a year-long probation sentence is
> likely
> to be saddled with a $1,250 drug-testing bill.
> Moreover, drug testing is helping to expand the criminal system into new
> areas of society. Thanks to decades of drug-war policies, the tests have
> entered [27] schools, hospitals, workplaces, and the welfare system -- and
> testing positive can result in serious punishment, including surveillance
> and confinement. One in five [28] high schools now use drug tests and many
> punish a "dirty drop" with loss of extracurricular activities or even
> expulsion from school.
> As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted [29] decades ago, "there are
> few
> activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of
> urine." Yet in many circumstances, from workplaces [30] to law enforcement
> probation [31] visits, people being tested are not only listened [32] to,
> but also watched as they urinate. The Minnesota Department of Corrections,
> for instance, gives these instructions [33] to its probation and parole
> staff: "Staff must... position himself/herself in such a manner as to
> verify
> the specimen passes directly from the offender's body into the specimen
> collection container."
> Such drug tests are also used by child protective services agencies during
> home visits to surveil parents, overwhelmingly mothers of color and
> particularly black mothers [34]. A failed drug test may result in the
> removal of children from the home -- regardless of whether the drug use is
> affecting the parenting abilities of the user.
> During the drug-war years, unlike the other ways in which we relate to our
> bodies and our health, drug use has become fair game for policing and state
> surveillance. No state intervention can mandate that you stop eating gluten
> or quit smoking cigarettes or undergo chemotherapy, but we have come to
> accept the idea that outside authorities may monitor, control, and punish
> your choice to use certain drugs -- and rampant drug testing is a graphic
> manifestation of that. Like any health-related blood or urine test, drug
> testing is not inherently bad, but its widespread, mandatory, and invasive
> deployment by the state is unique among health procedures. It is the only
> routine medical test that can land you in jail.
> As public approval of drug-war-fueled mass incarceration ebbs, however,
> it's
> important to remember that the drug "battlefield" now extends well beyond
> the prison and that privacy violations once reserved [35] for jails and
> drug
> treatment centers are now common in places where privacy was once a given.
> Predictive Policing
> Perhaps the most prevalent prison-outside-of-prison version of
> incarceration
> happens before, not after, arrest. It's what anti-police-violence activist
> Joseph "Jazz" Hayden calls "open-air prisons [36]" -- that is, the
> intensification of policing and surveillance in poor neighborhoods of
> color.
> As a growing national movement has made clear recently, in many black and
> brown communities police are a feared source of violence, not an answer to
> it. A recent Pew survey [37] showed that black Americans are much less
> likely than whites to believe that police protect them from crime. Only 31%
> of black respondents believed that the police were "good" or "excellent" at
> protecting their safety and for just 6% were they "good" at "using the
> right
> amount of force for each situation."
> Yet when right-wing advocates against mass incarceration opt for a new
> approach, they tend to support approaches that lead to identifying certain
> areas (homes, blocks, schools, neighborhoods) as "crime hotspots [38]," and
> cramming them with law enforcement and surveillance. Right on Crime, a
> Texas-based "prison reform" group which Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, and many
> other conservative luminaries promote, calls for using money saved from
> reducing prison populations to expand "data-driven policing [39]" and, in
> the process, increase the use of electronic monitoring and private security
> firms.
> Case in point: a method called "predictive policing" is increasingly
> gaining
> favor with right-wing "reformers." Appropriately enough, as reporter Aaron
> Cantú documents, [40] the very concept was birthed by a private company
> called PredPol [41]. As the ACLU of Massachusetts notes [42], this
> technique
> "essentially applies the Total Information Awareness approach to policing."
> That means drawing upon large pools of surveillance, arrest, and other data
> to develop "algorithms" to determine when and where a crime might happen in
> the future. The use of historical arrest data ensures, of course, that
> police presences will intensify in places that are already most heavily
> patrolled and where the most arrests occur: poor neighborhoods of color.
> As that ACLU report observes:
> "If police arrested lots of bankers and lawyers for cocaine use and for
> hiring expensive sex workers, we might see predictive policing algorithms
> sending cops to patrol rich suburbs or fancy hotels in downtown areas.
> Instead, the algorithms simply reproduce the unjust policing system we've
> got."
> In recent years, as the barriers between local law enforcement and the
> country's intelligence agencies have broken down, opportunities for
> race-based targeting [43] within communities have multiplied. For example,
> under the banner of counterterrorism, national and local outfits have
> colluded in intensifying the surveillance of Arabs and Muslims. The
> Electronic Frontier Foundation notes [43] the dissemination of "suspicious
> activity reports [14]" through national police and intelligence networks
> with titles like "Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern] Males Buy Several Large
> Pallets of Water." In this way, "predicting" crime falls in line with
> racial
> and religious profiling.
> Current applications of the "predictive policing" strategy usually involve
> expanding surveillance and data collection and increasing the number of
> police clustered in certain locations. However, the predictive software may
> be used in more aggressive ways in the future. In Albuquerque, for example,
> police have begun using the software to flag "bait" items [44], such as
> copper wire and cars, placing them in targeted neighborhoods. If the items
> are taken, arrests can be made on the spot or police can continue to track
> them (and the people who've taken them), enlarging the area that is
> directly
> surveilled.
> Even some of the "reforms" being proposed in response to racist police
> violence carry the potential to be used against the public in ways that
> expand the bounds of who is watched and when. The body cameras that
> President Obama proposes all police wear face outward [45]. As
> constitutional lawyer Shahid Buttar notes, they monitor anyone who crosses
> their path, including people suspected of no crime, "without the individual
> basis for suspicion constitutionally required to justify a police search."
> Buttar warns that this uptick in public surveillance could actually fuel
> incarceration. Constant video footage means more opportunities to convict
> people of the small "crimes" occurring all the time, from jaywalking to
> selling loose cigarettes to causing a public disturbance. The more
> convictions, the more potential for punishment -- and the more
> opportunities
> for confinement.
> Sex Offender Registries
> Although the left-leaning among us may respond to secret data collection
> and
> hidden cameras with a visceral aversion, some other strategies that cage
> people are not so firmly installed on the list of liberal no-nos.
> Electronic
> monitoring, house arrest, and targeted policing number among these. Another
> such mechanism generally condoned or even championed by liberals is the sex
> offender registry. Yet placement on a registry is a sure ticket to
> imprisonment-outside-of-prison, sometimes for life. In most states, the
> minimum duration [46] before you can get off a sex offender registry is at
> least a decade; in some states, it's forever.
> In 2013, Sable, an incarcerated Pennsylvania woman and mother of three
> young
> children, was gearing up for release. Three years earlier, when she was 24,
> she had been convicted of "statutory sexual assault" -- carrying on a
> sexual
> relationship with a 15-year-old boy. In some ways, she was looking forward
> to leaving prison. In others, she was dreading it.
> Release, she wrote me, would look nothing like freedom. She would, she
> explained [47], be required to avoid cell phones and the Internet. She'd be
> banned from contact with minors -- including her own children. Beyond these
> tangible restrictions, she was terrified of a more amorphous kind of
> imprisonment, what she referred to as "the stigma I will live with for the
> next 22 years." In Pennsylvania, anyone convicted of a sex offense spends
> the next quarter-century on a sex offender registry. She anticipated the
> fear, rejection, or even violence she might face from neighbors,
> prospective
> employers, and possible friends.
> Sex offender registries are a relatively recent phenomenon. They became
> widespread in the 1990s in the wake of several high-profile abductions,
> rapes, and murders of children. Though there's no evidence [48] that the
> registries actually prevent sexual assault, they now exist in every state
> and have been codified into federal law.
> To question their use is not to diminish the gravity of sexual violence.
> Rather, their lack of effectiveness in assault prevention, their grounding
> premise that ongoing punishment is appropriate long after imprisonment has
> ended, and their gathering up of those convicted of a wide range of
> offenses
> -- from sex work [49] (as outlined by scholar Erica Meiners) to the receipt
> of pornography [50] -- should give us pause, no matter how distasteful many
> of the registrants' crimes may be.
> In numerous states, the whole registry is available for search on the
> Internet, complete with mug shots and addresses. In some states, that
> includes juveniles.
> Josh Gravens, a prison reform activist and Soros Justice Advocacy Fellow,
> was arrested at age 12 for having had sexual contact with his
> eight-year-old
> sister. He recently wrote [51] in the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
> that, despite three and a half years in juvenile prison and four years on
> parole, "by far the worst penalty I experienced was being placed on the
> Texas Sex Offender Registry." As an adult, Gravens faced evictions, a
> near-impossible quest for employment, and a giant, pervasive stigma against
> him and his family. "As it stands today," he writes, "the registry harms
> far
> more children than it protects."
> As monitoring and intrusion become more prevalent, they are normalized and
> become expectable, built into the fabric of how we relate to other human
> beings. If allowed to expand, sooner or later they also are likely to add
> categories of people who are not as easily dismissed by mainstream culture.
> In a world of electronic monitors, predictive policing, interagency data
> sharing, hidden cameras, and registries, imprisonment extends not only
> beyond the walls of the jail or penitentiary, but beyond any contained
> space. In the new world of incarceration, your house is your prison. Your
> block is your prison. Your school is your prison. Your neighborhood... your
> city... your state... your country is your prison.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@alternet.org'. [52]
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[53]
>
> Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/america-has-become-one-giant-prison
> Links:
> [1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/maya-schenwar-0
> [2] http://www.tomdispatch.com/
> [3]
> http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73
> &id=1e41682ade
> [4]
> http://www.thenation.com/blog/178641/marissa-alexander-now-faces-60-years-pr
> ison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense
> [5]
> https://niastories.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/no-selves-to-defend-curriculum-f
> or-marissa-alexander-teach-in/
> [6]
> http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/FloridaF&
> ;F.pdf
> [7]
> http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/probationers_prison_privatized_su
> pervision_becomes_a_spiral_of_added_fees_j
> [8]
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2014/02/an_interview_with_
> eric_holder049026.php
> [9]
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0917-gingrich-prop--47-criminal-j
> ustice-20140917-story.html
> [10] http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/qkh/summary/v097/97.2.graber.html
> [11]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=awrOHv-gtqQC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&
> dq=quaker+reformers+prison+penitence&source=bl&ots=mB8HOKe5I-&si
> g=975kKQoYWugnD7v2Du6AdMOYlew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=msmSVP28MuLZ7gadooGo
> Dg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=quaker%20reformers%20prison%20peniten
> ce&f=false
> [12]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=XT9gEDKOOuwC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&am
> p;dq=bentham+solitary+confinement+surveillance&source=bl&ots=lrfym6G
> HDe&sig=rQAan76HGVbejMG35cUGAxxivhc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k8qSVKmeLs
> jQ7Abak4CYDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bentham%20solitary%20confin
> ement%20surveillance&f=false
> [13]
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175822/tomgram%3A_crump_and_harwood,_the_net
> _closes_around_us/
> [14]
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175919/tomgram%3A_shamsi_and_harwood,_an_ele
> ctronic_archipelago_of_domestic_surveillance/
> [15] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/234460.pdf
> [16]
> http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1582&contex
> t=law_journal_law_policy
> [17]
> http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawr
> eview
> [18]
> http://truth-out.org/news/item/25232-the-spread-of-electronic-monitoring-no-
> quick-fix-for-mass-incarceration
> [19] http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_post-release.pdf
> [20]
> https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2012/mar/15/electronic-monitoring-some-
> causes-for-concern/
> [21]
> https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/court-sanctione
> d-extortion-private-probation-companies
> [22] http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0214_ForUpload_0.pdf
> [23]
> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27555-community-corrections-profiteeri
> ng-corruption-and-widening-the-net%20%22
> [24] http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5135
> [25]
> http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/TIC_report_onlin
> e.pdf
> [26]
> http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/11-04-01/Drug_Testing_Often_a_Pa
> rt_of_Supervised_Release.aspx
> [27] http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-testing-policies
> [28]
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/after-school-special-positive-school-climate-not
> -drug-tests-might-deter-use-among-high-schoolers
> [29] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/602
> [30] http://workrights.us/?products=drug-testing-in-the-workplace
> [31] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/181103.pdf
> [32] http://ssdp.org/campaigns/student-drug-testing/talking-points/
> [33]
> http://www.doc.state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?Opt=205.231.h
> tm
> [34] http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/ruddick.htm
> [35]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=8ClVvgD_EIIC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&
> dq=1980s+drug+testing+%22direct+observation%22&source=bl&ots=9bkHubo
> -de&sig=5XMGAgaTatmMjq3h1OkT5f9bsr4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tZKhVL-lGo
> K3yQSqkIKYAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1980s%20drug%20testing%20%2
> 2direct%20observation%22&f=false
> [36] http://www.alternet.org/books/what-if-we-abolished-prisons
> [37]
> http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/25/few-say-police-forces-nationally-do-w
> ell-in-treating-races-equally/
> [38]
> http://www.rightoncrime.com/reform-in-action/state-initiatives/new-york/over
> view/
> [39] http://www.rightoncrime.com/priority-issues/law-enforcement/
> [40]
> http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24396-beyond-drones-and-stop-and-frisk
> [41]
> http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/all-tomorrows-crimes-the-future-of-poli
> cing-looks-a-lot-like-good-branding/Content?oid=2827968
> [42] https://www.privacysos.org/predictive
> [43] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq#9
> [44]
> http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Leadership/futu
> re%20trends%20in%20policing%202014.pdf
> [45]
> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28357-police-violence-body-cams-are-no
> -solution
> [46]
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/sex_of
> fender_registry_laws_by_state_mapped.html
> [47]
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Locked_Down_Locked_Out.html?id=VVZCngEAC
> AAJ
> [48] http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658483
> [49] http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/13-worst-of-the-worst/
> [50]
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-extein-msw/capitol-punishment-the-tr_b_
> 4756400.html
> [51]
> http://jjie.org/op-ed-for-a-child-sex-offender-once-online-always-online/108
> 002/comment-page-1/
> [52] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on America Has Become One
> Giant Prison
> [53] http://www.alternet.org/
> [54] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
No comments:
Post a Comment