Summary Of The Rich Get Richer And Poor Get Prison
In the article, “The Rich Get Richer and Poor Get Prison” Jefferey H. Reiman clearly depicts that poor citizens have a greater chance for imprisonment over middle and upper- class citizens. The author makes it predominately obvious that he believes, at least as far as criminal justice is concerned, racism is simply one powerful form of economic bias (Reiman 1). Through studies, statics in the article overall show that black Americans with low income rates or no income at all living in “disorganized inner-cities” have an increasingly higher rate to commit crimes resulting in being arrested leading conviction. The criminal justice system functions to ‘weed out’ and thus grants advantages to the middle and upper- class. First, there is economic
class bias towards the poor being punished more frequently for crimes that both the rich and poor commit. Although the rich also commit these crimes, they seem to get away with it thus the poor populate our prisons more than the rich. The President’s Crime Commission conducted a survey that supports the argument of rich people committing crimes and getting away with them. The statistic states that out of 10,000 households “91 percent of all Americans violated laws that could have put them in jail at some point in their lives (Reiman 3). When it comes to the conviction process, there are two factors that significantly affect the outcome of being incarcerated. One is the ability to be put on bail and second is being able to contribute sufficient time into the case. Both of these have a costly aftereffect, limiting the poor from being able to accomplish these. Second, the crimes that all social class citizens commit hold a stronger value towards poor people. When a poor and rich person are both punished for a crime, it is more likely that the poor person will result in harsher punishment compared to the rich citizen. Terence Thronberry conducted a study of 3,475 delinquent boys in Philadelphia and found that boys arrested for equally serious offenses and who had similar prior offense records, police were more likely to refer to lower- class youths than more affluent ones in juvenile court (Reiman 4). When wealthier boys got in trouble they would be let off a lot easier, resulting in probation or holding them in the station until a parent could come get them. Third, among defendants committing the same crimes, the poor are more likely to face conviction in comparison to the wealthy facing lower punishment such as probation. The decision of who is going to convicted starts at the beginning of the criminal justice system. The population that reaches the point of sentencing has already been subject to whatever discrimination exists at earlier stages (Reiman 3). There is also an even greater down side to this. For example, if one has already been convicted, then brought in for another crime with a criminal justice system not racially bias, they will be more likely to get convicted again because of their prior charge. It is not fair that if they are once convicted due to their class, they are more likely to be convicted again.
class bias towards the poor being punished more frequently for crimes that both the rich and poor commit. Although the rich also commit these crimes, they seem to get away with it thus the poor populate our prisons more than the rich. The President’s Crime Commission conducted a survey that supports the argument of rich people committing crimes and getting away with them. The statistic states that out of 10,000 households “91 percent of all Americans violated laws that could have put them in jail at some point in their lives (Reiman 3). When it comes to the conviction process, there are two factors that significantly affect the outcome of being incarcerated. One is the ability to be put on bail and second is being able to contribute sufficient time into the case. Both of these have a costly aftereffect, limiting the poor from being able to accomplish these. Second, the crimes that all social class citizens commit hold a stronger value towards poor people. When a poor and rich person are both punished for a crime, it is more likely that the poor person will result in harsher punishment compared to the rich citizen. Terence Thronberry conducted a study of 3,475 delinquent boys in Philadelphia and found that boys arrested for equally serious offenses and who had similar prior offense records, police were more likely to refer to lower- class youths than more affluent ones in juvenile court (Reiman 4). When wealthier boys got in trouble they would be let off a lot easier, resulting in probation or holding them in the station until a parent could come get them. Third, among defendants committing the same crimes, the poor are more likely to face conviction in comparison to the wealthy facing lower punishment such as probation. The decision of who is going to convicted starts at the beginning of the criminal justice system. The population that reaches the point of sentencing has already been subject to whatever discrimination exists at earlier stages (Reiman 3). There is also an even greater down side to this. For example, if one has already been convicted, then brought in for another crime with a criminal justice system not racially bias, they will be more likely to get convicted again because of their prior charge. It is not fair that if they are once convicted due to their class, they are more likely to be convicted again.