User:Kar71000/sandbox

Gabrielle Tolliver's Peer Review

Good points:

- written in passive voice

- shows no bias to a certain opinion concerning this topic

Points that could be improved:

- When giving statistical facts provide a citation or evidence

- state where you all put these chunks of information

Overall I think you are adding very needed statistics to show the effects incarceration has on African Americans in the US. It is very good that you are sticking to the non biased styled writing needed for Wikipedia. Watch for lack of citations and be clear where you will put these sections of the Wiki page. ~gabrielletolliver

= Incarceration Rates of African Americans in the United States =

Effects of parental incarceration on children[edit]
More than 2.7 million children in the United States have an incarcerated parent. For every mother that is incarcerated in the United States there are about another ten people (children, grandparents, community, etc.) that are directly affected. The effects of a parent’s incarceration on their children have been found as early as three years old. Having an incarcerated parent affects children in "separation experiences and associated risks". In a recent study, approximately 75% of the children reported symptoms including "depression, difficulty sleeping, concentration problems, and flashbacks about their mothers' crimes or arrests". Studies have also shown other associated risks such as displaying more aggressive behavior and less likelihood of graduating college. Moreover, children with an incarcerated parent have been found to establish social networks with peers who had “slightly lower GPAs and...who engaged in more lying, skipping school, and fighting”. The main way to mitigate the long term consequences of parental incarceration, such as personal and household earnings and powerlessness, is graduating college.

I

Effects on employment[edit]
Felony records greatly influence the chances of people finding employment. Many employers seem to use criminal history as a screening mechanism without attempting to probe deeper. They are often more interested in incarceration as a measure of employability and trustworthiness instead of its relation to any specific job. People who have felony records have a harder time finding a job. The psychological effects of incarceration can also impede an ex-felon's search for employment. Prison can cause social anxiety, distrust, and other psychological issues that negatively affect a person's reintegration into an employment setting. Men who are unemployed are more likely to participate in crime which leads to there being a 67% chance of ex-felons being charged again. In 2008, the difficulties male ex-felons in the United States had finding employment lead to approximately a 1.6% decrease in the employment rate alone. This is a loss of between $57 and $65 billion of output to the US economy.

Although incarceration in general has a huge effect on employment, the effects become even more pronounced when looking at race. Devah Pager performed a study in 2003 and found that white males with no criminal record had a 34% chance of callback compared to 17% for white males with a criminal record. Black males with no criminal record were called back at a rate of 14% while the rate dropped to 5% for those with a criminal record. Black men with no criminal background have a harder time finding employment than white men who have a history of criminal activity. While having a criminal record decreases the chance of a callback for white men by 50%, it decreases the callback chances for black men by 64%.

While Pager's study is greatly informative, it does lack some valuable information. Pager only studied white and black males, which leaves out women and people of other races. It also fails to account for the fact that applying for jobs has largely shifted from applying in person to applying over the Internet. A study done by Scott H. Decker, Cassia Spohn, Natalie R. Ortiz, and Eric Hedberg from Arizona State University in 2014 accounts for this missing information. This study was set up similarly to the Pager study, but with the addition of female job applicants, Hispanic job applicants, and online job applications. Men and women of white, black, and Hispanic ethnicities account for 92% of the US prison population.

The results of Arizona State University study were somewhat different from Pager's study, but the main finding was expected: Incarceration decreased the chances of getting employed. For females submitting applications online and in-person, regardless of criminal history, white women received the most amount of callbacks, roughly 40%. Hispanic women followed up with a 34% callback rate. Black women had the lowest rate at 27%. The effects of incarceration on female applicants in general were that females with a prison record were less likely to receive a callback compared to females without a prison record. The significant exceptions are white women applying in person and Hispanic women with a community college degree applying online.

For males submitting applications online and in-person, regardless of criminal history, Hispanic males received the most amount of callbacks, roughly 38%. White males followed up with a 35% callback rate. Black males had the lowest rate at 27%. The effects of incarceration on male applicants applying in-person was that males with a prison record were less likely than males without a prison record to receive a callback. However, the effects of incarceration on male applicants applying online were nearly nonexistent. In fact, the study found that "there was no effect of race/ethnicity, prison record, or community college [education] on men's success in advancing through the [online] hiring process". The Arizona State University study also had results that contradicted Pager's study. It found that white males with a prison record did not have a higher callback rate than black males (and Hispanic males) without a prison record. Hispanic men without a prison record had a 40% higher callback rate than white males with a prison record, and black men without a prison record had a 6% higher callback rate than white males without a prison record.

Effects on the psyche of the formerly incarcerated
Our new study looked at how having a family member locked up related to psychological distress (a measure of mental health) among African American men, some of whom have done time. There is not a lot of data from respondents about their history of incarceration. The assumption is that no one wants to disclose that they were locked up. And most scholarly attention focuses on collateral damage, neglecting the experiences of the formerly incarcerated.

Going into the study, we expected that all African American men would be distressed by the imprisonment of an immediate family member. We also expected that men who had been locked up would experience even higher levels of psychological distress because they would empathize with their family member who was currently behind bars.

We were right on one count. Men who had never been incarcerated did experience high levels of distress when a family member was locked up.

But what we found among formerly incarcerated African American men was totally unexpected. When their immediate family members were in jail or prison, formerly incarcerated black men reported low levels of psychological distress. How low? Lower than never incarcerated black men without relatives in jail or prison. And – even more surprisingly – lower than formerly incarcerated men without imprisoned relatives. How could this be possible?

After re-checking the analyses for errors and finding none, we speculated that formerly incarcerated African American men may feel no empathy for their immediate family members who were currently in jail or prison.

Empathetic inurement
Lack of empathy may be a valuable survival strategy in jail or prison, but our findings imply that this “empathetic inurement” follows these men back into the community.

We think that formerly incarcerated African American men return home to families and communities that desperately need them changed in a terrible way. They may be tone-deaf when it comes to recognizing the suffering of their currently incarcerated family members. Even more, they may be unable to act as model citizens or good husbands or loving fathers.

Contribution Evaluation/Peer Review by Aleesia Smith:

I liked how to you divided your entry into sections based on effects on children and effects on employment. I found one of the sentences in the first paragraph confusing. " The effects of a parent’s incarceration on their children have been found as early as three years old. " Is there a way you could rephrase that? Maybe by saying "Children with incarcerated parents have shown signs of....as early as 3 years old". I think that the effects on employment can be a little more organized. Maybe separate by race and gender and not have them as intertwined. '''Thanks for your suggestions Aleesia, although I think this is actually what is on the site right now, not what Kennedy is going to add (see below). But your comments are totally on target (for whomever did write this)!'''

Second Draft
=== The Effects of Mass Incarceration on Communities of Color === In poor and disadvantaged communities, there may well be a tipping point at which rigorous crime policies and practices can do more harm than good.

Understandably, most of us would expect that removing criminals—those who would victimize others—from a community would be welcomed by the populace, and that both residents and their property would be better off as a result. For most places, that is likely true. Removing a person who has hurt others or who does not respect the property of others is tantamount to removing a thorn from a tender foot. But there is a growing body of evidence that suggest that this may not always be the case, because of the effects that time in prison has on individuals and their home communities. There are collateral consequences that accrue to imprisoned people even after their sentences are completed, and some criminologists believe that when the number of felons removed from a community is “too high,” it may actually harm the places where they use to live. And, since most people who are incarcerated return to the same neighborhoods, or very similar places as those they were removed from, their presence in large numbers, when they go home, adds a substantial burden there, too.

Although the United States has made some progress, it remains a substantially racially segregated nation residentially. And, the country stays very economically segregated as well. It is not surprising that poor people of color have been incarcerated disproportionately during the massive increase in imprisonment that has occurred in the nation since the early 1980s. It is from poor communities of color that a very large number of felons are removed, and to these same neighborhoods that they return when their sentences end. This population churning has been called “coercive mobility” by criminologists. Although it is the intent of legislatures, judges, police, and prosecutors to protect citizens and communities, there is reason to believe that coercive mobility has the unintended consequence of actually increasing crime and victimization.

Some of the changes during this period of increased incarceration that disadvantaged people of color coming into the justice system were implemented with the help and support of African American political leadership, with the express purpose of protecting black and brown communities. Perhaps the best example of this is the initial federal sentences for crack cocaine offenses: conviction for crack selling (more heavily sold and used by people of color) resulting in a sentence 100 times more severe than for selling the same amount of powder cocaine (more heavily sold and used by whites).

A long-running academic debate among criminologists has gone on during this same period about race and justice, the central question being how much of high minority incarceration is a consequence of differential involvement in criminal behavior versus a biased criminal justice system. That debate is not settled. But one factor is pretty much agreed upon: There is overrepresentation of minority group members among those engaging in crime, but even after this is taken into account, people of color are overrepresented in U.S. prisons and jails. The question is how much of the high levels of incarceration of African Americans and Latinos is warranted by higher levels of crime and what proportion is unwarranted. The best research indicates that the answers to these questions should be answered by looking specifically at types of crimes. Among the most serious violent crimes, the evidence suggests that unwarranted racial disparity is modest. For less serious crimes, the proportion of unwarranted racial disparity increases. This can be seen clearly by considering the evidence on drug imprisonments resulting from the war on drugs. Good evidence indicates that racial and ethnic groups use and sell drugs proportionally to their representation in the population; so about 13percent of drug users and sellers are African Americans, about 17 percent are from the various Latino groups, and approximately 65 percent are whites (whites tend to sell to whites; blacks to blacks). But, more than 50 percent of those imprisoned for drug sales or possession are people of color. In fact, one study by the group Human Rights Watch found that black men are sentenced on drug charges at a rate that is more than 13 times higher than white men.

Some observers have claimed that African American and Latino drug dealers are more likely to be arrested because their activities are more likely to occur in open air public drug markets than does the dealing of whites. But at least one study has found that police elect to pursue open air drug markets with minority dealers and ignore those where whites are selling. Overall, the war on drugs has been especially hard on minority individuals and communities, and this cannot be justified by overrepresentation of these groups in this particular form of criminal behavior.

Contrary to what some casual observers might think, residents of African American and Latino communities want crime control, as well as effective and fair policing and a criminal justice system that removes crime perpetrators but that is also accountable to those communities. Popular media reports that focus on the “don’t snitch” norm of some segments of those communities mask important distinctions. First, the belief that a don’t snitch mindset exists in black communities tends to “criminalize” the entire population. This feeds into the historical experience of many law abiding citizens living in these communities that as far as “the system” is concerned, they are all criminals. Most people living in communities of color are law abiding citizens who have little in the way of other housing options. They feel that they are stopped, hassled, and disrespected by police just as often as those who are actually committing crimes. For these folks, there is little incentive to cooperate with a system they believe will ultimately abandon them when a case is over. Second, people in these communities have to live there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They know that law enforcement won’t be there to protect them forever. They have to live with the very real fear of retaliation from criminals in the community if they cooperate. It is not unusual for witnesses, and even victims, to a crime to refuse to testify or cooperate because they believe that the system will abandon them when a case is over. To the extent that a don’t snitch norm exists, it is primarily observed among some young people in very socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Also, the populations in even the most disadvantaged sections of cities are very heterogeneous with respect to views of police and criminal justice agencies and institutions. Young African Americans who wear “don’t snitch” t-shirts are no more representative of their communities than young whites with multiple piercings and tattoos are of theirs.

Some observers perceive the “black lives matter” movement to include a demand to remove police from black neighborhoods. Nothing could be further from the truth. That movement is calling for effective and accountable policing. So when serious criminals—those who victimize and terrorize black and brown communities—are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned, there are multiple responses in the places where they lived and, more often than not, engaged in their predatory behavior. There may be those who see and lament “another brother oppressed by the man, but the vast majority of people who live there will be pleased that someone who hurt and victimized others is, at least for a time, no longer roaming their streets free to wreak more havoc.

=== The Impact of Mass Incarceration on the Lives of African American Women ===

Effects of parental incarceration on children[edit][edit]
More than 2.7 million children in the United States have an incarcerated parent. For every mother that is incarcerated in the United States there are about another ten people (children, grandparents, community, etc.) that are directly affected. The effects of a parent’s incarceration on their children have been found as early as three years old. Having an incarcerated parent affects children in "separation experiences and associated risks". In a recent study, approximately 75% of the children reported symptoms including "depression, difficulty sleeping, concentration problems, and flashbacks about their mothers' crimes or arrests". Studies have also shown other associated risks such as displaying more aggressive behavior and less likelihood of graduating college. Moreover, children with an incarcerated parent have been found to establish social networks with peers who had “slightly lower GPAs and...who engaged in more lying, skipping school, and fighting”. The main way to mitigate the long term consequences of parental incarceration, such as personal and household earnings and powerlessness, is graduating college.

Effects on employment[edit][edit]
Felony records greatly influence the chances of people finding employment. Many employers seem to use criminal history as a screening mechanism without attempting to probe deeper. They are often more interested in incarceration as a measure of employability and trustworthiness instead of its relation to any specific job. People who have felony records have a harder time finding a job. The psychological effects of incarceration can also impede an ex-felon's search for employment. Prison can cause social anxiety, distrust, and other psychological issues that negatively affect a person's reintegration into an employment setting. Men who are unemployed are more likely to participate in crime which leads to there being a 67% chance of ex-felons being charged again. In 2008, the difficulties male ex-felons in the United States had finding employment lead to approximately a 1.6% decrease in the employment rate alone. This is a loss of between $57 and $65 billion of output to the US economy.

Although incarceration in general has a huge effect on employment, the effects become even more pronounced when looking at race. Devah Pager performed a study in 2003 and found that white males with no criminal record had a 34% chance of callback compared to 17% for white males with a criminal record. Black males with no criminal record were called back at a rate of 14% while the rate dropped to 5% for those with a criminal record. Black men with no criminal background have a harder time finding employment than white men who have a history of criminal activity. While having a criminal record decreases the chance of a callback for white men by 50%, it decreases the callback chances for black men by 64%.

While Pager's study is greatly informative, it does lack some valuable information. Pager only studied white and black males, which leaves out women and people of other races. It also fails to account for the fact that applying for jobs has largely shifted from applying in person to applying over the Internet. A study done by Scott H. Decker, Cassia Spohn, Natalie R. Ortiz, and Eric Hedberg from Arizona State University in 2014 accounts for this missing information. This study was set up similarly to the Pager study, but with the addition of female job applicants, Hispanic job applicants, and online job applications. Men and women of white, black, and Hispanic ethnicities account for 92% of the US prison population.

The results of Arizona State University study were somewhat different from Pager's study, but the main finding was expected: Incarceration decreased the chances of getting employed. For females submitting applications online and in-person, regardless of criminal history, white women received the most amount of callbacks, roughly 40%. Hispanic women followed up with a 34% callback rate. Black women had the lowest rate at 27%. The effects of incarceration on female applicants in general were that females with a prison record were less likely to receive a callback compared to females without a prison record. The significant exceptions are white women applying in person and Hispanic women with a community college degree applying online.

For males submitting applications online and in-person, regardless of criminal history, Hispanic males received the most amount of callbacks, roughly 38%. White males followed up with a 35% callback rate. Black males had the lowest rate at 27%. The effects of incarceration on male applicants applying in-person was that males with a prison record were less likely than males without a prison record to receive a callback. However, the effects of incarceration on male applicants applying online were nearly nonexistent. In fact, the study found that "there was no effect of race/ethnicity, prison record, or community college [education] on men's success in advancing through the [online] hiring process". The Arizona State University study also had results that contradicted Pager's study. It found that white males with a prison record did not have a higher callback rate than black males (and Hispanic males) without a prison record. Hispanic men without a prison record had a 40% higher callback rate than white males with a prison record, and black men without a prison record had a 6% higher callback rate than white males without a prison record.

Effects on the psyche of the formerly incarcerated[edit]
Our new study looked at how having a family member locked up related to psychological distress (a measure of mental health) among African American men, some of whom have done time. There is not a lot of data from respondents about their history of incarceration. The assumption is that no one wants to disclose that they were locked up. And most scholarly attention focuses on collateral damage, neglecting the experiences of the formerly incarcerated.

Going into the study, we expected that all African American men would be distressed by the imprisonment of an immediate family member. We also expected that men who had been locked up would experience even higher levels of psychological distress because they would empathize with their family member who was currently behind bars.

We were right on one count. Men who had never been incarcerated did experience high levels of distress when a family member was locked up.

But what we found among formerly incarcerated African American men was totally unexpected. When their immediate family members were in jail or prison, formerly incarcerated black men reported low levels of psychological distress. How low? Lower than never incarcerated black men without relatives in jail or prison. And – even more surprisingly – lower than formerly incarcerated men without imprisoned relatives. How could this be possible?

After re-checking the analyses for errors and finding none, we speculated that formerly incarcerated African American men may feel no empathy for their immediate family members who were currently in jail or prison.

Empathetic inurement[edit]
Lack of empathy may be a valuable survival strategy in jail or prison, but our findings imply that this “empathetic inurement” follows these men back into the community.

We think that formerly incarcerated African American men return home to families and communities that desperately need them changed in a terrible way. They may be tone-deaf when it comes to recognizing the suffering of their currently incarcerated family members. Even more, they may be unable to act as model citizens or good husbands or loving fathers.

'''Kennedy: Given that there are very few sources here, it is impossible to discern were this information comes from. These last two sections, for example, are plaigarized from the New Republic articles. It is imperative that you NOT take work form other sources and pass it off as your own on Wikipedia.'''

Outline of New Contribution

 * 1) mass incarceration is modern day slavery

I.

II.

III.

IV.