by

In 1970, there were less than 500 000 people residing in prison in America. Today, that number has swelled to over 2.2 million, which accounts for nearly 1% of the population. Part of that growth is linked with the population growth, but given that America’s population has only grown by about 34% since that time, the fact that the prison population has grown by over 500% seems to be more than a little excessive. This does not include the over 4 million Americans on probation or parole, which amounts to almost 3% of the population being under ‘correctional supervision’. This also excludes the over 70 000 youths who are currently incarcerated as well. About 3 out of every 70 people on the planet are American, but about 1 out of every 4 people in world’s prison population are residing in an American prison. That means that a country who makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, has filled up nearly 25% of the world’s prison population. China, who has 1.3 billion people, has less people in prison than American, whose population is less than 10% of the China’s, but it is China that some American pundits refers to as a ‘police state’. Some have suggested that the rise in America’s prison population is the result of the ‘war on drugs’ and the ‘tough on crime’ legislation, and whilst the moral policing of victimless crimes is certainly one of the major contributors to the disproportionate growth of America’s prison population, this shift has also occurred at a time when the distribution of wealth in America has shifted. According to one report, in 1970, when the prison population was less than 0.3% of the population of America, the top 1% of earners in America were in possession of less than 5% of the total wealth in America. Today, the top 1% are in possession of nearly 35% of America’s wealth, rivaling the kind of numbers that were present leading up to the Great Depression. What does this have to do with the prison system? Well, aside from the fact that property laws are more likely to be broken during times of economic depression, the legal system in America is inherently capitalist. Though justice may be blind, she is not deaf, and the people who speak to her tend to earn a lot of money. If one cannot afford a lawyer who knows how to talk to Lady Justice, then one is likely going to face more prison time than he/she would have had she/he been part of that 1%. Capitalist justice, in other words, has led to the over-incarceration of economically depressed persons whilst the wealthy manage to avoid prison time, and given that more and more people are becoming economically depressed, that means more and more people are ending up in prison.

The evidence of this is present in any number of cases, perhaps most notably in the case of Ethan Couch. Last year, at the age of 16, he was convicted on killing four people whilst drunk driving. Despite having had to go to alcohol awareness classes for a prior arrest, Couch went driving with a blood-alcohol level the was three times the legal limit, was going 70 mph in a 40 mph zone, and caused an accident that killed four people. Prison time? No. His lawyer states that Couch ‘suffered’ from a condition called ‘Affluenza’, which in short meant that he was so affluent due to his wealth, that he had been taught that he didn’t have to answer for his consequences (this is not to be confused with the term ‘Affluenza’ as employed by critics of consumerism). Couch’s lawyer actually cited an incident where Couch had tried to rape a minor and received no punishment for his actions, as if getting away with attempted rape is some sort of argument that excuses manslaughter. Judge Jean Hudson Boyd, who may or may not have made a sizable deposit in an offshore account shortly before or after the ruling, bought this argument, and rather than teaching Couch that his actions do have consequences by giving him jail time, he opted to facilitate Couch’s ‘affluenza’ by letting him off with probation and sending him to a treatment facility, despite the fact that Couch had already attended a treatment facility and that didn’t seem to stop Couch’s behaviour from escalating. The cost of the treatment is over $700 a day, meaning that in the course of a single month, taxpayers are paying as much as they pay for a single year of incarceration for a prisoner in the regular prison population. It seems that being rich not only helps to pay for your lawyer, but can also be an excuse for your crimes. Despite the fact that Couch killed four people and injured several others, he will never have to spend a night in prison for his crime and tax payers will be footing the bill for his ‘treatment’.

In stark contrast to this, another youth of only 14-years, has recently been charged with the crime of ‘desecrating’ a religious statue and faces up to two years in prison for it. Now, keep in mind that the statue is an inanimate object. Nobody died. The youth stood on a statue of Jesus praying and placed his crotch in the face of the ‘son of God’. There was no nudity. There was no vandalism. There was no damage. There was only a photo taken. Is the statue deprived of its sacred character? If you say yes, then you are suggesting that a 14-year-old boy who likely responds with the words “That’s what she said” to half of what he hears, actually has a power greater than that attributed to the Christian god. But there are several issues with this. One, there is the cost to the judicial system: police, law clerks, a judge, prosecutors, legal aid. Everybody is being brought into this at the cost of tax-payers dollars. What should have at worst been a visit from police telling the youth to not repeat the behaviour in future and to remove the image from his social networking sites, has turned into a circus that tax payers are paying for. What is more frightening, though, is that this youth is in a position to spend more time in jail than Couch received for killing four people in a drunk-driving incident that took place after Couch had attended an alcohol counselling session. The 14-year-old who took a picture has not tried to rape a minor, has not had to attend alcohol counselling sessions, and has not killed anybody, let alone four people, but unlike Couch, this youth may end up spending as much as two-years in prison. The fact that this is even being treated is a felony is an issue that explains in part the swelling prison population, but the fact that a wealthy teen who was older and knew better committed far more heinous acts never had to spend a night in jail demonstrates how the justice system treats affluent people better than economically depressed persons. This ‘over-prosecution’ approach is one commonly employed to place those who are accused of crimes under duress. The threat of lengthy prison time if convicted instills fear into people and encourages them to take plea bargains when no crime has been committed. Given that even in high-profile cases, as many as one person is twenty is wrongly convicted of crimes, it is a legitimate concern among innocent people that they might end up in prison if they don’t plead out.

This was certainly the case with Brian Banks. Banks was falsely accused of rape, and though police and prosecutors didn’t have sufficient evidence to convict Banks, they convinced him that they did have enough evidence to convict him and put him away for 41 years unless he took a plea deal, which had a ten-minute time limit. Banks accepted the deal and served several years in jail, though he was innocent. After he was released, Banks met up with his accuser and recorded her confessing that she had falsely accused him. The woman who had accused Banks won 1.5 million in a settlement from the school board because the alleged rape had supposedly taken place on school grounds. The school successfully sued her for 2.6 million dollars, but Banks has not received a penny for his false imprisonment. Banks was from a working class family and could not afford proper representation, so though he was innocent, he could not afford to prove it. With the threat of extended jail time, an overzealous prosecution, and police investigators who assumed guilt, the system put Banks, an innocent man, behind bars. The moral of the story? If you don’t have the money to pay for a good lawyer, your innocence doesn’t matter.

If a person from an economically depressed family has to spend upwards to six years in jail for not committing rape, how much prison time would a wealthy person have to serve for actually committing rape? Well, if your last name ends in a Roman numeral, and the victim is a toddler who happens to be your own daughter, the sentence for that may not even include any jail time. Judge Jan Jurden, who may or may not have made a sizable deposit in an offshore account shortly before or after her ruling on convicted rapist Robert H. Richards IV, expressed concern, not for the toddler who Richards raped, but rather for Richards, who happens to be an heir to the du Pont fortune. Jurden stated in her defence of a wealthy rapist ‘ruling’ that Richards would not “fare well in prison”. Um… yeah. Typically child molesters don’ fare well in prison. Does that me we are setting them all free? Or just the ones who are unemployed and are heirs to the du Pont fortune? Richards is supported by a trust fund and doesn’t work, so he will have lots of time on is hands to find other victims seek counselling, which according to Richards’ former wife didn’t help, since she came forward to suggest that he also molested their son, who was likewise a toddler. Whilst Jurden believes wealthy rapists like Richards should be spared prison, less wealthy rapists, such as John Paul Thomas, should get 37 years in prison, since that is the sentence she handed to Thomas in 2006. Whilst Banks was threatened with 41 years in prison for a single rape he didn’t commit, Richards received no prison time to a rape he did commit, all while a youth who took a picture with a statue is now looking at 2 years in prison. It seems clear that the justice system operates in a very different way depending on the size of your bank account.

When sentencing people to prison to rape, there is always the issue of not only ensuring the victim has justice, but also of preventing future victims. It is curious, then, that the American judicial system often hands out longer sentences for victimless crimes than they do in instance of rape and reckless endangerment. Jeff Mizanskey, though, is currently serving a life sentence with no chance for parole for doing something which isn’t even a crime in some states: selling marijuana. Mizanskey is a victim of the ‘three-strikes’ rule which states that any person convicted of three felonies gets an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole. Mizanskey was first convicted of selling marijuana to an uncover police officer policy enforcer in excess of an ounce, which can fit in the palm of your hand. He was caught with half a pound when the policy enforces raided his house the next day. That was in 1984 (coincidence?). In 1991 he was charged for possessing in excess of 2 ounces, which again, is not even a criminal offence in some states. His third strike involved him driving a friend to a buy. He was not buying, but because he had ‘two strikes’, and he was present, he was sentence to life in prison. Had Mizanskey been able to afford a lawyer, he would have been able to avoid jail time in each case and likely wouldn’t even have one strike against him, but sadly, because he could not afford representation, he took plea bargains in his first two cases. His reason for selling marijuana? Because times were tough and he needed to earn a little extra cash to support himself and his family. While Couch killed four people and hasn’t served a day behind bars, and Richards rape his own daughter without spending a night in jail, Mizanskey was engaged in a non-violent activity, which isn’t even a crime in some states, and as a result is serving a life sentence. It seems clear that the justice system is broken when killers and rapists with big bank accounts can get away with criminal activity without serving any time in prison whilst working class people who resort to victimless crimes end up in jail for life because they happened to have a possessed two ounces of marijuana two years prior. About 20 000 people are in prison right now for offences related strictly to marijuana. Assuming that each is costing the government about $22 000 a year, that means that rather than collecting taxes from these 20 000 inmates, tax payers are handing out 440 million dollars per year to pay for these inmates.

Looking at various forms of theft, one of the most common is Grand Theft Auto, which in some states can earn a person up to three years in jail, or life in prison if it is your third time out. As much as it sucks to have your car stolen, most of us have insurance. If our car gets stolen, we may end up with one of higher value. However, should our pensions be stolen, or should we be taken in a scam, there is no insurance policy that is going to ensure we are protected. The discrepancy is that while somebody who steals a car worth $1000 may end up serving as long as three years in jail, somebody who steals the pensions of numerous people amounting to millions or even billions of dollars, will likely end up avoiding criminal prosecution altogether by simply cutting the government in on the action. They pay a fine, sometimes as much as 20 billion dollars, and all is forgotten. How does justice work in this case? Well, in some instances, the victims who lost their pensions or savings might lose their house and have to declare bankruptcy, but don’t worry, because the fines allow the government to pad their bank account, the ‘banker’ (aka thief) avoids prison, and in the case of Lloyd Blankfein, even gets a 74% raise, pocketing 20 million dollars a year despite the fact he caused his bank to pay out 20 billion dollars in fines. With child molesters, one of the conditions of their release is often that they are not allowed near children. This is to prevent them from re-offending. With Blankfein, though, not only is he not in jail, but he is now being rewarded for his criminal activity with a raise, and he has been left in the same position he was in when he committed the offense, giving him ample opportunity to re-offend. The government gets cut in on the deal, the criminal gets a raise, and the victim gets nothing. And why not prosecute? Attorney General Eric Holder says that aside from being ‘too big to fail’, the banks are all ‘too big to prosecute’. Given that the war on drugs has put over 20 000 people in prison for marijuana charges alone and spends billions of dollars each year, it seems like Holder’s excuse amounts to nothing more than selective laziness.

Some might suggest that prosecuting non-violent crimes like embezzlement is a waste of time, but these aren’t the only crimes committed by big business. General Motors, for instance, was acutely aware of defects in their vehicles, and were even made aware that in some instances the defects lead to accidents and the death of occupants in the car. However, given that the cost of a recall would cut into their bottom line, the company opted to hide the information and not recall the cars. The result? At least 31 crashes and 13 deaths, and these are only the ones GM has identified themselves. Far from reckless endangerment, this amounts to nothing short of capitalist homicide. Whilst embezzling money may not leave a blood trail, GM’s refusal to recall their defective vehicles did leave a blood trails, and few things in this world are as violent as a car accident. Yet no criminal charges have been laid against any individuals. The victims are not represented by the prosecution in such cases, though the government is more than happy to collect fines and profit from this. It is not an uncommon practice for prosecutors to fail to represent victims. A highschool in Pennsylvania, the same area where the aforementioned 14-year-old is potentially facing two years in prison, recently sent students home with free laps. Sounds great, no? Until it is revealed that the school had the ability to remotely turn on the wbecams and record still or video images. The school, in its own defence, has claimed that it only spied on 42 students, which is kind of like a serial killer saying that he/she only killed 42 people: “Think of all the people I didn’t kill though.” The privacy of students and non-students alike were violated, but the FBI claims that they are not pursuing criminal charges, stating that there was no ‘criminal intent‘, though it is obvious that the school clearly intended to use the webcams as they did so repeatedly to the tune of over 56 000 images. This violation of privacy IS a crime and WAS the intent. To say that there is no ‘criminal intent’ is the equivalent of the FBI suggesting that though a person murdered somebody and did intend to murder a person, there was no ‘criminal intent’ and therefore no charges would be pursued. Aside from over-prosecuting members of the working class, the government repeatedly refuses to protect members of the working class and allows big business, and in some instances schools, kill and spy on members of the working class. Further evidence of the selective laziness on the part of prosecutors.

Looking at the glaring inconsistencies in prosecution and sentencing, it seems overtly clear that the America’s justice system is severely broken. The wealth gap has created a prison gap. If the prosecution recognizes that a potentially innocent person like Brian Banks can’t afford proper representation, they often prove all too eager to threaten them with what amounts to unlawful kidnapping that equals a 41-year sentence in order to get them to plead out, meanwhile actual rapists like Robert H. Richards IV avoids jail time altogether, despite the fact that he raped a toddler who happened to be his own daughter. And whilst Ethan Couch kills four people and he doesn’t spend a night in jail, Jeff Mizanskey, who has never killed anybody or committed and act of violence, serves life in prison. Likewise, a 14-year-old in Pennsylvania is looking at serving two years in prison for taking a picture with a statue as bankers like Lloyd Blankfien avoid criminal prosecution altogether by cutting the government in on their scam. It is clear that the justice system, as it is set up now, is one that services the wealthy and punishes the poor. It is a capitalist justice system that is sending innocent people to prison for no other reason than the fact that they can’t afford adequate representation, and their incarnation is costing the tax payers billions of dollars in the process. As this goes on, prosecutors and judges are leaving dangerous offenders on the street, or in the banks. because they happen to have the right number of zeros in their bank account. Though some might argue that America is a democracy and that justice is blind, it is clear that America is an oligarchy and that its justice system is a for-profit organization that has no concern for the working class and is structured to keep the wealthy out of prison.

If you enjoyed this article, get updates on my latest posts by following me on Twitter @JasonJohnHorn. Be sure to ‘like’, share and leave a comment below.