Economic Status and Severity of Punishment Relationship

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Issue of Unfair Punishment
Incarceration and Poverty
Status-Based Injustice
Conclusion
References

Introduction

As a matter of fact, the law is supposed to be class-neutral and apply to everyone without discrimination. However, in practice, justice and the attitude of the criminal justice system, especially in relation to punishment, to offenders are determined by several factors, including a person’s economic status. On the one hand, economically disadvantaged incarcerated perpetrators are overrepresented in the system regardless of their race, gender, and age. Poverty may be regarded as one of the major factors that lead to delinquency. On the other hand, the predominance of people with low economic status in prisons indicates justice inequities on the basis of income. In other words, more affluent people have an opportunity to receive less severe punishment in comparison with poor individuals.

The purpose of this work is to examine the prevalent economic characteristics of offenders using the method of literature review. The significance of this paper is determined by the fact that the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of offenders on the basis of their economic status violates people’s constitutional rights. As it undermines the authority of the law, responsive measures should be taken. The paper aims to assume or abandon the following hypothesis: People with lower economic status are punished more severely for crimes than those with higher economic status.

Issue of Unfair Punishment

The issue of the economic status’s impact on punishment may be regarded as one of the most disturbing problems in sentencing. As a matter of fact, the vulnerability of socially and economically disadvantaged offenders in relation to criminal justice is a widespread phenomenon that may be observed all over the world. Otherwise stated, people with lower economic status are sentenced to imprisonment more frequently and convicted of more crimes in comparison with more affluent individuals (Bagaric, 2015). In addition, sentences for the same crime may be substantially different for poor and rich people. At the same time, in a substantial number of cases, such injustice occurs for particular reasons that cannot be controlled by offenders. Nevertheless, the biased manner of the criminal justice system’s operation that results in economically disadvantaged offenders’ over-representation in it requires a clear solution.

The significance of this problem is also determined by the fact that it has forced some eminent philosophers and experts to rethink and retract their theories related to punishment. A legal philosopher Herbert L.A. Hart suggested that “the pressure of gross forms of economic necessity” could be regarded as an excusing condition (Bagaric, 2015, p. 1). Antony Duff, a leading expert on the sphere of punishment philosophy, also admitted that in the present inequitable world, his communicative theory of punishment is no longer applicable.

According to him, deep, comprehensive, and far-reaching social, legal, economic, political, and moral changes on people and society are necessary to make punishment justifiable within the contemporary legal system. In addition, he believed that public failure “to accord all citizens the concern and respect that they deserve provides disadvantaged offenders with the strongest moral basis for resisting punishment” (Bagaric, 2015, p. 2). The statement dedicated to inequity is supported by Andrew von Hirsch and Jeffrie G. Murphy as well. They stated that political and social systems should provide equal opportunities for all citizens to make punishment fair and additionally promote law-abiding behavior.

Incarceration and Poverty

In developed countries, although there are other factors besides economic inequality that may lead to penal differentiation, a positive relationship between offenders’ economic status and incarceration level may be observed. In 1979, a book with an intentionally provocative title The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison written by Jeffrey Reiman has addressed multiple already known criminological truths (Newburn, 2016). First of all, wealthy people “are rarely punished in the same way, or to a comparable extent, to the crimes of the poor” (Newburn, 2016, p. 329). Moreover, economically disadvantaged offenders are presented in prisons at highly disproportionate rates.

The latter claim is clearly understandable for experts as poverty is one of the major causes of delinquency and mass incarceration. In general, the scope of its impact on an individual’s crime committing cannot be accurately ascertained. However, statistical data shows that economically disadvantaged people are more vulnerable to “being arrested and more likely to be charged with a harsher crime and to receive a longer sentence” (Hayes & Barnhorst, 2020, para. 13). They are three times more likely to be arrested in comparison with citizens who have a higher economic status (Hayes & Barnhorst, 2020).

In addition, individuals who earn less than 150% of the federal poverty level are fifteen times more susceptible to being charged with a criminal action than more affluent ones (Hayes & Barnhorst, 2020). Regardless of the fact that the national rate of poverty is 11.8%, according to statistical data collected by the Brookings Institution, 72 % of female offenders and 57% of male ones lived in poverty before arrest (Hayes & Barnhorst, 2020). Taking into consideration that poor education or its absence inevitably affects employment opportunities and income, it is possible to conclude that a substantial number of convicted people did not receive proper education as well.

Previously mentioned research organized by the Brookings Institution aimed to examine the incarcerated population’s economic characteristics using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. The study sample obtained by experts was almost 2.9 million individuals – all information was submitted by state prison agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to the IRS (Looney & Turner, 2018).

In addition, the institution identified marital status, parents’ income, and childhood neighborhood for approximately 500,000 prisoners (Looney & Turner, 2018). According to the results, 51% of incarcerated individuals were unemployed prior to arrest, and the median annual earnings of 49% of employed citizens did not exceed $6,250 (Looney & Turner, 2018). Moreover, offenders were not economically disadvantaged and unemployed – in the majority of cases, they grew in neighborhoods characterized by high unemployment, poverty, and single-parent families.

Another survey on the basis of data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics also demonstrates a considerable gap between the incomes of offenders prior to arrest and people who were not involved in criminal activities (Table 1). The substantial difference between their median annual incomes is 41%. The results indicate the incarceration of poor people at highly disproportionate rates regardless of their ethnicity, gender, age, and crimes.

Table 1. Annual income of incarcerated individuals prior to incarceration and non-incarcerated individuals.

	Incarcerated People (prior to incarceration)		Non-incarcerated People
	Men	Women	Men	Women
All	$19,650	$13,890	$41,250	$23,745
Black	$17,625	$12,735	$31,245	$24,255
Hispanic	$19,740	$11,820	$30,000	$15,000
White	$21,975	$15,480	$47,505	$26,130

Status-Based Injustice

While the impact of low income on incarceration has been already identified and examined, injustice in punishment for similar or the same crimes on the basis of economic status attracts particular attention. Inequities in punishment may be explained by the criminal justice system’s focus on the offender rather than victims and the crime (Fredericks et al., 2016). Theoretically, the law is both class- and race-neutral – it should apply to everyone without discrimination.

However, in practice, multiple experts on sentencing policy admit that in the United States, there are two criminal systems – one for rich and one for poor (“Two in one: Differences in the US justice system for the rich and the poor,” 2016). In other words, unequal access to resources contributes to the creation of great disparities in how the criminal justice system addresses people with low and high economic status.

Inequities based on multiple factors may be observed in the United States criminal justice system. It is well-established by multiple research that African Americans and Latin Americans are overrepresented in the country’s criminal justice system (Bagaric, 2015). Due to structural racism in multiple spheres, they have fewer opportunities to receive a proper education and high-income job. That is why 60% of all population in US prisons consist of ethnic and racial minorities (“Two in one: Differences in the US justice system for the rich and the poor,” 2016). At the same time, what unites white and minority offenders is the fact that all of them are predominantly poor.

Thus, poor people are eventually disadvantaged at every stage of the criminal justice process. For instance, law enforcement policies, including so-called “stop and frisk,” are predominantly employed in low-income communities despite non-involvement in the criminal activities of the majority of people stopped by police. Subsequently, the inability to pay money bail that serves as a pretrial release condition contributes to poor people’s detention.

Finally, due to low economic status, perpetrators have limited access to counsel, publicly-funded treatment programs, and alternative incarceration (“Two in one: Differences in the US justice system for the rich and the poor,” 2016). In addition, they frequently rely only on court-appointed attorneys, a substantial number of whom maintain high caseloads or they are frequently inexperienced.

In turn, while the criminal system for the poor presupposes harsh mandatory sentences, aggressive prosecution, paramilitary policing, and other draconian punishment, for wealthy individuals, it implies light sentences, drug treatment, fines, and easy prison time or even its absence. And it goes without saying that rich people commit crimes, including violent ones, as well. However, they are treated differently in comparison with poor individuals even in the case of committing the same crime.

Affluent citizens have an opportunity to escape punishment for serious crimes due to their high economic status. For instance, Robert Durst, an heir to a New York real estate fortune, who had been charged with murder in 2001, afforded $300,000 for his bail – later, he was released and fled (Times Editorial Board, 2017). In turn, a poor person charged with murder as well does not have an opportunity to be released or receive less severe punishment.

Obviously, not all wealthy people exploit the system and commit crimes being aware of their impunity. However, they nevertheless may take advantage of common rights “to a degree that is not available to poor people” (“Two in one: Differences in the US justice system for the rich and the poor,” 2016, para. 6). In other words, they may post bail, receive alternative sentencing, and hire professional defense counsel.

Moreover, corruption within the criminal justice systems should be taken into consideration as well. In addition, the criminal justice system has faced the growth of cash bail even if no evidence justifies its benefits for community safety. In 2013, the median bail amount was $11,700 – in 2020, it is almost $13,000 (Looney & Turner, 2018). In turn, the majority of the economically disadvantaged population cannot afford to pay their bail in contrast with affluent citizens.

At the same time, higher economical class is associated with a particular type of crime – white-collar crimes. In general, white-collar crime may be defined as a “crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Fredericks et al., 2016, p. 5). Therefore, it is non-violent misconduct associated with commercial situations and focused on financial gain. White-collar crimes traditionally include bribery, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, and other forms of corruption.

There is a considerable difference in how violent and white-collar crimes are perceived and treated by the criminal justice system and society. White-collar offenders are regarded as non-dangerous for other people – thus, they often receive less serious, significantly shorter, and even insignificant punishment, including community service and fines. As white-collar criminals are labeled as people from an upper class with higher economic status, it determines how they are viewed by society and the system. All in all, they are differentiated from street criminals, even if the consequences of their crimes are economically severe, and recidivism rates among white-collar perpetrators are high.

At the same time, even if the severity of a white-collar crime presupposes imprisonment, its conditions will differ from the incarceration of poor offenders. For instance, Cook County Jail that housed more than 8,000 inmates, predominantly Blacks, was associated with acts of violence and physical abuse both between inmates and administered by guards (Zbrog, n.d.). People suffered from psychological disorders, did not receive any medical care, and their constitutional rights were constantly violated.

Even when a class action lawsuit was decided in favor of inmates, their compensation was insignificant. In turn, white-collar criminals receive an opportunity to spend their sentences in facilities, such as the Federal Correctional Institute Otisville, a work camp and medium-security prison, that houses no more than 700 inmates (Zbrog, n.d.). It was in the list of the most comfortable prisons where the most serious conflict was “when inmates disagreed about who should be kicked off of a recently viewed episode of American Idol” (Zbrog, n.d., para. 15). The prison has a handball court, exercise equipment, and other amenities to help criminals pass the time.

Conclusion

Injustice and the unfair treatment of criminals on the basis of their economic status may be regarded as one of the most disturbing problems in sentencing that require particular attention and responsive measures. In the United States, a prevalent number of incarcerated individuals spend their sentences for crimes directly and indirectly connected with poverty. According to the study’s results, the hypothesis related to more severe punishment for people with lower economic status in comparison with those with higher economic status is confirmed.

On the basis of multiple surveys, it is possible to conclude that the majority of offenders were either unemployed or had low income prior to incarceration. In addition, the majority of them are economically disadvantaged since childhood being raised in poverty, neighborhoods characterized by high unemployment, and single-parent families. In addition, lower economic status does not allow to pay the bail contribution to poor people’s detention.

In turn, rich people have more opportunities for receiving an insignificant sentence. They may post bail, receive alternative sentencing, and hire professional defense counsel. In addition, affluent individuals are treated differently in comparison with poor individuals even in the case of committing the same crime. In addition, higher economic status is associated with white-collar crimes that are not punished severely. Thus, rich offenders often receive less serious, significantly shorter, and even insignificant punishment, including community service and fines. Even in the case of incarceration, their conditions will be more comfortable.

References

Bagaric, M. (2015). Rich offender, poor offender: Why it (sometimes) matters in sentencing. Law and Inequality, 33(1), 1-51.

Hayes, T. O., & Barnhorst, M. (2020). Incarceration and poverty in the United States. American Action Forum. Web.

Fredericks, K. A., McComas, R. E., & Weatherby, G. A. (2016). White collar crime: Recidivism, deterrence, and social impact. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 2(1), 5-14. Web.

Looney, A., & Turner, N. (2018). Work and opportunity before and after incarceration [PDF document]. Economic Studied at Brookings. Web.

Newburn, T. (2016). Social disadvantage, crime, and punishment. In H. Dean & L. Platt (Eds.), Social Advantage and Disadvantage (pp. 322-340). Oxford University Press.

Rabuy, B., & Kopf, D. (2015). Prisons of poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned. Prison Policy Initiative. Web.

Times Editorial Board. (2017). Editorial: How the poor get locked up and the rich go free. Los Angeles Times. Web.

Two in one: Differences in the US justice system for the rich and the poor. (2016). Web.

Zbrog, M. (n.d.). Follow the money: How rich criminals get treated differently. Forensics Colleges. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!