Written by Erica Salinas
Last week, President Obama announced several executive measures he will implement in order to improve the life chances of previously incarcerated individuals.[1] Among the initiatives announced was “ban the box” which will prohibit federal employers from asking applicants about convictions and postpone criminal history searches until after the initial job screening. In discussing reintegration of individuals released from prison, President Obama framed the urgency of aid and public policy as a matter of offering second chances to individuals who have paid their dues. More broadly, he argued our economy would suffer if we did not think about ways to successfully integrate the thousands of individuals who are released from prison. Throughout his speech, he shared the success stories of individuals who with the help from supportive organizations have managed to turn their lives around despite criminal backgrounds and continuing hardships. Only until the latter half of his address did Obama highlight the need to address the root causes of mass incarceration, such as housing, education, and access to jobs.
Obama’s speech in Newark, New Jersey is significant and interesting for multiple reasons. The fact he addressed reintegration and other criminal justice reforms suggests we are moving toward less punitive crime policies in the U.S. At the same time, Obama used issue frames that are more consistent with conservative law and order type appeals that have been used to increase punishment. This is evident in the goals in his speech including preventing crime and promoting ‘productive, law abiding, self-sufficient, good citizens.’ In addition, describing the success stories of a few individuals portrays the issue of crime and reintegration in terms of having the will or motivation to change bad habits. This opens up an alternative line of reasoning, those that do not change their ‘criminal’ tendencies are not sufficiently motivated and are less deserving of help. Perhaps the biggest problem is this discourse decontextualizes and depoliticizes how we came to have 2.2 million people incarcerated in the first place.
The careful appeals made by a Democratic president make sense in light of a longer history of conservative issue ownership over crime policy established in the 1960s.[2] Vesla M. Weaver traces the origins of punitive crime policies to the strategic actions of political leaders opposed to civil rights gains, a process she calls frontlash. Conservative leaders successfully associated black activism with criminality in effect hindering any additional efforts at passing civil rights legislation. Frontlash has made it difficult for Democratic political leaders to talk about crime policy outside of the law and order doctrine. Consequently, although Obama made policy suggestions that break with punitive crime policies, the language he used to support these changes is still attempting to work within an issue domain that has been captured by Republicans.
We have come full circle, mass incarceration has become a public issue political elites can no longer ignore. The following questions remain: Is political discourse that is appealing to the median white voter desirable as a political strategy? Or is centering race and redefining the issue space a more desirable strategy to dismantle a racist criminal justice apparatus?
[1] Naasel, Kenrya R. (Nov. 2015). “Obama Announces ‘Ban the Box’ Measure, Other Criminal Justice Reforms.” Colorlines. Accessed Nov. 8, 2015. http://www.colorlines.com/articles/obama-announces-federal-ban-box-measure-other-criminal-justice-reforms.
[2] Weaver, Vesla M. “Frontlash: Race and the Development of Punitive Crime Policy.”