We are so pleased to have you join us as we investigate this crucial topic. Violence is a leading cause of death, disability and health care use worldwide. Violence is a complex problem and can only be understood and reduced though a multidisciplinary approach. This course introduces you to experts who study different forms of violence and we will discuss the various causes of violence. You will also learn about efforts to reduce violence and engage in a day of compassion. We are very fortunate that PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER is participating in our course. He delivers a lecture on the efforts of the Carter Center to end violence around the world, and he engages in a discussion with us about his life and work in human rights. Do join us for short videos, readings and discussions. And also see our coffee chats, where we (Pamela and Deb) summarize and reflect on each module. And we want to hear from you! Feel free to reach out via Twitter or through the course, or through our Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/understandingviolence01/.
Violence & The Criminal Justice System
Loading...
From the course by Emory University
Understanding Violence
97 ratings
From the lesson
Consequences of Violence
We begin this module reviewing the psychological effects of violence including PTSD, depression, and suicidality. Then we assess the economic impact of violence and injuries. We will explore violence in relation to the criminal justice system, and recognize the long-term impact of sexual violence in wartime.
Meet the Instructors
Deb Houry, MD, MPHAssociate Professor
Emergency Medicine
Pamela Scully, Ph.D.Professor
Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and African Studies
Hello.
My name is Doug Ammar.
I am a lawyer and
the director of the Georgia Justice Project here in Atlanta, Georgia.
We are a nonprofit organization that does three things.
We do indigent criminal defense, a holistic indigent criminal defense.
The second thing we do is we help people overcome the impact of
the criminal records.
And the third thing we do is we lobby and push for
change, systemic change, in the criminal justice system.
We are located here in the Old Forth Ward,
in the King Historic District in Atlanta, Georgia.
We are located directly behind the grave of Dr.
King, on the same block as the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church where he and
his grandfather and his father preached.
And on the same block, directly behind the Center for Nonviolent Social Change,
the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change.
We're half a block away from where Dr. King was born.
And it's very much of a privilege and
an honor to do this work of justice in the shadow of Dr. King.
I'm here today to talk about violence.
There is little argument, I'd suggest,
that the goal of the criminal justice system is ultimately to protect society,
to protect residents in a community from crime.
They're not the sum total goal of the system,
one rather important goal is to protect citizens from violence.
And yet, it would not be an outlandish thesis to suggest that
the criminal justice system in America, in its current iteration and
impact has precisely the opposite outcome,
that the criminal justice system creates more violence instead of reducing it.
Now, one definition of violence by the CDC, the Centers for
Disease Control, is that the intentional use of physical force or
power, threatened or actual against another person or a group or
community that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury,
death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
America is the world leader in incarceration.
Though the USA makes up only 5% of the world's population,
we have 25% of the world's incarcerated population.
Comparing the US with China is compelling, though China has four times more
people than we have, they have nearly a million less prisoners.
The incarceration rate for China is 125 per 100,000, whereas, for
America, it's 751 per 100,000.
The 2.2 million people currently incarcerated in the United States is, for
instance, 153% higher than Russia, 505% higher than Brazil,
and over 2,000% higher than Indonesia, Bangladesh, or Nigeria.
Since the 1970s, the prison population in America has increased 700%.
Of those arrested and charged for a crime in this country, 90% are poor.
As bad as the overall numbers are, the criminal justice system
disproportionately affects African Americans.
One out of three black males will go to jail or
prison in their lifetimes in this country.
One out of seven black males are currently incarcerated.
One out of nine black children have a parent currently incarcerated.
Does the American criminal justice system reduce violence or
does it work to perpetuate it?
To be argued that the way the American criminal justice system operates today,
based on its impact, it's not reducing but is, rather, perpetuating violence.
Now, I'm going to talk about three things.
The front end of the system, the middle part of the system, and
the back end of the system.
So, when we talk about the front end of the system, it's how does the system work.
How did America become the leader in incarceration?
Most of this on this issue point to the war on drugs.
The war on drugs was launched in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration.
An early manifestation, and some would say a blueprint for
the later war on drugs were the Rockefeller laws in the state of New York.
That approach used the criminal justice system to punish those involved
with drugs, both the sales and use, as opposed to rehabilitation.
By the end of the 1980s, the US Congress created the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
that incorporated this approach.
In addition to producing a slew of negative outcomes, the guidelines also
created the momentum and some would say a mandate for the states to follow.
For instance, the creation of mandatory minimums came out
of the sentencing guidelines.
This removed the judge's discretion in sentencing.
Mandatory minimums set per-prescribed sentencing based on a charge of
the charge of defense.
This approach often punished with incarceration those caught with drugs.
It punished more severely those who possessed crack cocaine versus
powder cocaine.
This sentencing schema, in part referred to as the 101 Disparity,
disproportionately punished those possessing crack cocaine versus others
possessing powder cocaine.
By the early 1990's, as the prison population boomed,
the federal government began to push down their approach to their tough on crime,
touch on drugs approach into the state systems.
States began in the early 1990s to pass their own version of
tough on crime legislation.
These included approaches like mandatory jail time for
multiple drug offenses, three strikes and you're out laws.
Though in Georgia, we have two strikes and you're out, requiring jurisdictions to
prosecute juveniles as adults when charged with certain offenses.
As the legislatures made sentencing, sentence is required and
longer, the federal government gave money, more money to the states to pay for
police officers, more police officers.
And the courts reduced constitutional protections,
which increased arrest powers while increasing conviction rates.
All of these things, working on both the federal level,
as well as on the individual state levels, led to increased arrest, prosecutions, and
ultimately, the imprisonment of more and more Americans.
But this momentum didn't just affect the average or
an average cross section of our community.
Many in the criminal justice,
justice system said that it is better to be guilty and rich than innocent and poor.
Why?
Because roughly 90% of those arrested and charged in this country are poor.
75% of all arrestees in this country are African American.
Over 95% of all cases prosecuted end in plea bargains.
In the criminal defense community,
there is an expression that reflects this quick type of justice.
Meet 'em, greet 'em, and plead 'em.
Regardless of who is arrested, convicted, and
sentenced to prison, the violence doesn't stop there.
It gets worse.
Let's talk about the conditions of our prison system.
Who gets sent to prison in this country?
Most of us believed that the system saved prison for the most violent offenders.
We believed that we would use the most severe form of punishment for
the worst, that is, the most violent offenders.
A generation ago, that was true.
Prior to the war on drugs, it's estimated that 80%
of inmates in the prison system were there for violent offences.
We use prison for those members of our society that we were afraid of,
those who physically harmed other members of the community.
Now, let's focus on what happens when we put someone in prison.
For the entire country, according to the FBI Crime Statistics for 2012, 0.13%.
0.13% of the general population reported being a victim of a sexual assault.
Yet 3.2% of inmates in city and
county jails reported being a victim of a sexual assault in that same time period.
Now, remember, that those are folks who are not yet convicted of a crime.
They are awaiting their day in court.
And 4% of prison inmates, those who have been convicted during the same period,
2012, reported they were the victim of a sexual assault.
Those numbers are staggering, especially in compare with the general population.
Now what about physical assaults?
During the same period, 2012,
1.2 million Americans reported being the victim of a physical assault.
Compare that raw number with this.
During the same period, 2012, inmates in US prisons and
jails reported 5.8 million assaults, 5.8 million.
That is five times the number of those outside the system.
This applies to folks who are not even convicted.
In addition, this violence is visited upon a majority of folks that were arrested,
convicted for nonviolent offenses.
Lastly, there is the tension between incarceration and rehabilitation.
Education is the best example and method of rehabilitation.
As part of the 1965 law signed by Lyndon Johnson,
the federal government provided money through the Pell Grant system to pay for
education in the prison systems, both state and federal.
By the 1980s, 90% of prisons offered higher education classes to inmates.
But in 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act.
This bill totally abandoned funding for
this program, shutting down 350 programs around the country.
The decision to punish versus the opportunity to rehabilitate followed our
decision to increase our incarceration rates.
This raises a fundamental question.
What is the purpose of incarceration?
There are other factors,
factors that time won't allow me to address that exacerbate this discussion.
Key among them is profit.
Companies making money from our ever and over incarceration momentum in
this country, makes this conversation a bit tricky.
If you accept my thesis that the criminal justice system is
actually expanding violence, then you add to the equation that companies,
companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange, are benefiting from this.
The problem becomes much more pernicious.
Now, let me move on to the consequences of the convention.
As bad as the front end of the system is, the arrest and
conviction apparatus is as difficult as the middle portion of the conversation is,
and that is the prison system.
It doesn't stop there.
The worst news of all is that the violence and injustice continue years after one's
encounter with the criminal justice system.
Because of the fact that someone has even been arrested, much less convicted,
arrested, and or someone who's been sent to prison,
etches is etched forever in our community's cyber memory forever.
Overcoming the impact of an arrest or conviction has grown more and more
difficult, that elongates the deleterious influence of the criminal justice system.
One of my favorite stories is Victor Hugo's Les Miserable.
Many of you will remember the scene where Jean Valjean,
recently released from prison, is sitting at dinner with the Bishop.
At the dinner table, Jean Valjean tells the Bishop that he is on his was to Dijon.
But who will hire him, who will give him a place to stay, he asked.
Because, on his passport, it's stated that he is a convict.
After serving 19 years in prison, Jean Valjean says,
now the real punishment begins.
If there ever was a modicum of truth reflected in a Victor Hugo's story,
written over 150 years ago,
it is even truer today, especially in the country that arrests, prosecutes, and
imprisons more of its population than any other country.
Especially in a time when,
thanks to the Internet, when information flows quickly and often without cause.
Take for example, mugshots.com.
Evidence of an arrest or conviction can impede the most basic things in life.
For instance, it can affect employment.
It can affect licensing.
That includes your drivers licence, your ability to get one.
It also can affect your ability to get a licence for work, like becoming a barber.
It can affect housing, certainly in public housing, which the federal regs allow for
folks to be kicked out or not given public housing based on an arrest or conviction.
But as well private housing,
someone can be denied the opportunity to rent an apartment or
a house based on their criminal record, no matter how old that record is.
And the land owner suffers no consequence.
It can effect voting, which which we'll talk about.
It can effect education, both in enrollment,
as well as in qualifying for student aid.
It can affect the, the ability to adopt, as well,
as we've heard in the news very recently, it can affect immigration.
Now, let's focus on employment for a moment.
Employment is the biggest predictor of recidivism,
people who are in the system and come back to the criminal justice system.
In the last five years,
the rate of employers conducting criminal background checks has increased over 90%.
63% of those employers admit to considering arrests that
did not lead to conviction.
A criminal record, an arrest or
conviction, reduces the chance of a callback by an employer by more than 50%.
Having an arrest or a conviction has an enormous impact on
whether someone who has had a brush with the law will be able to be employed.
And if those people cannot become employed,
they stand a great chance of re-engaging the criminal justice system,
which explains why our nation has a nearly 70% recidivism.
Now voting is another collateral consequence I'd like to talk about.
The US laws regarding disenfranchisement, that is the loss of your right to vote,
vary state to state.
There is no uniformity.
However, in all states except for two, a person will lose his or her right to
vote at some point upon interaction with the criminal justice system.
Whether how and
when they get that right back depends on the state and the state laws.
And like all of the above indicators, disenfranchisement is visited upon,
disproportionately upon African Americans.
This definitely impacts the South,
which has the highest percent of African Americans.
Nationally, for instance, nationally one in 13 blacks are disenfranchised,
one in 56 non-blacks are disenfranchised.
Nationally, one in three blacks born today will be disenfranchised in their lifetime.
Now, how important is this, the, the right to vote?
How important is it to lose the right to vote?
In 2000, in the election, the presidential election, for George W.
Bush, was decided by 537 votes in Florida.
And yet, at the same time, more than 600,000 Floridians were not in, who
were not incarcerated were disenfranchised because of a felony conviction.
Voter re-enfranchisement is critical to the successful re-entry of
folks who've had a brush with the system.
It increases political power, it strengthens democracy, and
it decreases recidivism.
Now in conclusion in our work here at the Georgia Justice Project, we see
hundreds of clients a year who suffer the consequences of a criminal record.
Often, the arrests underlying their records are decades old,
the people who deny the opportunity based on an old, often youthful mistake.
The criminal justice system is emplaced to protect society.
It is it is ironic that the system built to
reduce violence is the very system at every point that perpetuates it
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
