The System Is Not Broken, It Is Intentional: The Prisoner Reentry Industry as Deliberate Structural Violence

Abstract

The prisoner reentry industry (PRI) emerged as a by-product of mass incarceration, with the stated purpose of helping the formerly incarcerated reenter society and achieve a new “law-abiding” status. Traditional criminological studies point to high recidivism rates in the United States as proof that U.S. reentry fails to rehabilitate offenders. Utilizing data from 57 in-depth semistructured interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals and 10 interviews with reentry service providers across five states, we posit that although the PRI purports to rehabilitate offenders, it operates using mechanisms including parole conditions and fee-based reentry services that ensure the formerly incarcerated remain trapped in a cycle of failure. Hence, the PRI is not a broken system. Rather, it is an intentional form of structural violence perpetuated by the state to ensure the continued oppression of the most marginalized groups in our society.

Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review

“…African-Americans are more likely to owe LFO debt (Link, 2019 ). LFO debt is most often reported as arising from post-release supervision fees including half-way housing rent (Diller et al, 2009 ; Johnson, 2015 ; Link, 2019 ; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019 ). LFO debts can cause long term debt and damaged credit (Harris et al, 2010 ; Pleggenkuhle, 2018 ), with one study reporting 75% sent to collections; African-Americans are more likely to have their debt sent to collections (Diller et al, 2009 ).…”

“…LFO debts can cause long term debt and damaged credit (Harris et al, 2010;Pleggenkuhle, 2018), with one study reporting 75% sent to collections; African-Americans are more likely to have their debt sent to collections (Diller et al, 2009). Mixed and qualitative studies explore how people who owe LFO debts rely on social networks for financial support which causes family strain (Cook, Johnson, 2015;Nagrecha et al, 2015;Pleggenkuhle, 2012;Pogrebin, West-Smith, Walker, & Unnithan, 2014), forgo basic necessitates to make payments (Cook, 2014;Harris, 2016), face difficulties finding housing (Harris et al, 2010;Mogk, Shmigol, Futrell, Stover, & Hagopian, 2019), and are discouraged from entering formal economy or are forced to work low-wage jobs and forgo career-enhancing training/ education (Harris et al, 2010;Ortiz & Jackey, 2019;Pleggenkuhle, 2018). Various studies using different methods found that LFO debt may cause recidivism due to illegal activity or incarceration due to non-payment; two mixed methods studies found the latter happen in 17%-20% of cases (Cook, 2014;Ortiz, 2010;Ortiz & Jackey, 2019;Tostlebe, 2017).…”

“…Mixed and qualitative studies explore how people who owe LFO debts rely on social networks for financial support which causes family strain (Cook, Johnson, 2015;Nagrecha et al, 2015;Pleggenkuhle, 2012;Pogrebin, West-Smith, Walker, & Unnithan, 2014), forgo basic necessitates to make payments (Cook, 2014;Harris, 2016), face difficulties finding housing (Harris et al, 2010;Mogk, Shmigol, Futrell, Stover, & Hagopian, 2019), and are discouraged from entering formal economy or are forced to work low-wage jobs and forgo career-enhancing training/ education (Harris et al, 2010;Ortiz & Jackey, 2019;Pleggenkuhle, 2018). Various studies using different methods found that LFO debt may cause recidivism due to illegal activity or incarceration due to non-payment; two mixed methods studies found the latter happen in 17%-20% of cases (Cook, 2014;Ortiz, 2010;Ortiz & Jackey, 2019;Tostlebe, 2017). Numbers of people owing restitution varied from 13 to 70% (Koenig, 2007;Pearson & Davis, 2003;Pleggenkuhle, 2012); restitution debt may, in contrast to other LFO debt, increased time to recidivism (Tostlebe, 2017).…”

Against carceral data collection in response to anti-Asian violences

“…Generally, there is a considerable lack of access to safe housing, adequate support after release from prisons and jails, and noncoercive mental health care. Arresting people who experience vulnerability and precarity does not interrupt ongoing cycles of violence and instead perpetuates harm (Law, 2021; Ortiz and Jackey, 2019).…”

Captives in Society: The Role of Race in the Carceral Cycle

“…This definitional ambiguity predictably resulted in the proliferation of research on the pains associated with imprisonment. Contemporary research has not only described the pains of imprisonment but also identified the pains associated with other areas of the carceral justice system, such as jail, probation, parole, and reentry (Ortiz and Jackey 2019;Haggerty and Bucerius 2020). Research has also investigated how certain populations might uniquely experience certain pains while incarcerated or while reintegrating into society.…”