Reviewing my reading for Community Social Work Practice, a few points from the chapter on "The Nature of Social and Community Problems" stand out (Community Practice by Hardcastle and Powers).
LABELING: People who have violated drug policies and are incarcerated, on parole, on probation, are felons, or have been publicly known to have committed minor drug crimes are all often labeled.
Labels include loser, jailbird, felon, druggie, criminal, and many others.
As the book points out, labeling can have serious social and economic consequences. "Public labels such as..."ex-con" are conceptualizations that can create or sustain a problem." (p. 67)
In addition, the book discusses how incarceration intensely labels people, but that once you have served your term you can't get rid of that label.
I have observed this phenomenon in action in my internship last year as a medical social worker. The social workers at the hospital that I worked at were referred the patients who had risk factors, including a known history of legal problems, or in the case of new mothers in the OB, partners with legal problems.
Automatically, if your chart mentioned felonies, probation, or other legal involvement you would be referred to one of us.
Therefore, if you were an identified 'troublemaker', you would be more likely to be analyzed closely on matters such as child welfare, drug screenings, visitations, and other aspects of your life.
Therefore, if you were an identified 'troublemaker' you would be more likely to get in more trouble by virtue of more attention being put on you.
I see this as a microcosm of what is happening everywhere in the US: Police are policing poor areas more and therefore targeting the poor and minorities. Police are policing those who are already on probation or parole more, so it makes it harder to break free from the system.
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE:
Hardcastle and Powers tell the reader to think about "...who is benefitting from maintaining a particular problem..."(p.66)
This is a thought process that reveals a lot about the state of our country when it comes to incarceration.
When 1 in 99 are incarcerated, who benefits or has benefitted in the past?
As I have mentioned in past blogs,
1. The democratic party benefitted when it passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, creating Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, by appearing to be "tough on crime" right before an election
2. The Reagans benefitted by riding on the glory of creating these laws and the "Just Say No" slogan, almost like a product line
3. Many other politicians have benefitted by being "tough on crime", I mean, who is going to vote against getting those evil-doing drug lovers off the streets?
4. Private Prison companies benefit from full prisons, they certainly can run their businesses unless people are being incarcerated.
5. Alcohol companies have benefitted. They have a stronghold on the mind-altering business.
Hardcastle and Powers go on to mention how different people, classes, cultures, countries etc. can have varying perspectives on a problem. This is certainly true when it comes to the mass incarceration of drug offenders, when coming from an impoverished area.
Example Upper class view: *Get those druggies out of my neighborhood!
*Those addicts are dangerous monsters, did you see her teeth?
*This is America and they could be anything, stupid druggies!
*Nothing wrong with a little Xanax and Scotch
Example Poor view: *Get those cops out of my neighborhood, they target us!
*My husband is in prison for drugs, now I have to raise the kids alone.
*It seems impossible to get ahead when you're stuck in the system.
*Sometimes drugs seem like the only way to make money, or to be happy.
The rich and powerful have little room for drug offenders, they have no value and in fact have no voting power.
No comments:
Post a Comment