Search results

In 1987, the City of Los Angeles instituted the first gang injunction in the country. Gang injunctions are pursued through the civil courts to seriously restrict the activities and movement of suspected gang members and affiliates. People who have been served with a gang injunction are often prohibited from everyday activities, such as wearing sports jerseys, talking to other gang members, and being out in public past curfew, regardless of age. Though often justified by law enforcement as a necessary tool to fight gang violence, we argue that gang injunctions are similar to Slave Codes, Black Codes, and Jim Crow laws, which established a separate system of justice based on race. As such, gang injunctions serve as an extension of an apartheid-like system of justice that seriously limits the life opportunities of people of color within gang injunction territories.

This chapter draws upon the oral histories of people targeted by gang injunction laws within California, paying particular attention to how gang-identified individuals are surveiled, controlled, and confined.

Gang injunctions operate on an apartheid-like justice system that punishes perceived gang members harsher than non-gang members. These laws affirm the legal tactics that maintain racial boundaries and promote a system of justice that mirrors the Black Codes following the end of slavery. The evidence suggests that gang injunctions solely target low-income youth of color, who have been identified as gang members and served with injunctions.

Despite the ubiquity of gang injunctions within California, there is little research on gang injunctions, and even less literature on how these injunctions shape the life course of suspected gang members. We attempt to address this gap in the literature by showing how gang injunctions are not simply about fighting crime, but rather they are a tool used to control and corral communities of color.

Discussion of the 2016 electorate has centered on two poles: results of public opinion and voter surveys that attempt to tease out whether racial, cultural, or economic grievances were the prime drivers behind the Trump vote and analyses that tie major shifts in the political economy to consequential shifts in the voting behavior of certain demographic and geographic groups. Both approaches render invisible a major development since the 1970s that has been transforming the political, social, and economic landscape of wide swaths of people who do not reside in major urban areas or their prosperous suburban rings: the emergence and consolidation of the carceral state. This chapter sketches out some key contours of the carceral state that have been transforming the polity and economy for poor and working-class people, with a particular focus on rural areas and the declining Rust Belt. It is meant as a correction to the stilted portrait of these groups that congealed in the aftermath of the 2016 election, thanks to their pivotal contribution to Trump's victory. This chapter is not an alternative causal explanation that identifies the carceral state as the key factor in the 2016 election. Rather, it is a call to aggressively widen the analytical lens of studies of the carceral state, which have tended to focus on communities of color in urban areas.

Purpose – This chapter provides an overview of the importance of seeing personal troubles as public issues when examining the mass incarceration of people of color, specifically Black Americans in the United States. A response to the mass incarceration of Black Americans unrooted in a sociological understanding may lead to victim-blaming. This chapter demonstrates how personal problems are often intertwined with public issues. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the importance of shifting blame away from the victim and appropriately addressing systemic challenges.

Methodology/approach – This chapter applies sociological theories to examine high rates of incarceration of people of color that get attributed to personal problems. The authors based the analysis on previous research and governmental reports.

Findings – Sociological theory can offer new solutions to transforming the criminal justice system to alleviate injustices in communities of color. The criminal justice system has negative consequences, but resistance to accepting new ideas perpetuates inequality and limits opportunity for social change. The authors recognize that policy changes must occur at the institutional and structural levels to expose social injustice.

Originality/value – A dearth of research examines the approach of framing personal troubles as public issues to reduce mass incarceration. The authors intend to expand the discourse on how personal troubles intersect with public issues and how the authors must examine mass incarceration as the typical response.

EFTPoS (electronic fund transfer at point of sale) seen as a potential development in the 1970s, increasingly became a realistic proposition during the 1980s. In 1985, Eftpos UK Ltd, a joint endeavour by banks and building societies, was established to develop a unified clearing system. In advance of national introduction, three cities, Edinburgh, Leeds and Southampton, were chosen to pilot the Eftpos UK Ltd system. These pilot schemes began in late 1989. This article presents survey findings from the Edinburgh pilot scheme. Retailer response was sought before and after the trial to ascertain changing perceptions. The results throw an interesting light on the evolving attitudes of retailers to the system and indicates areas where future marketing of EFTPoS systems should be modified.

This chapter argues that the concept of ‘mass supervision’, and indeed the concept of ‘mass incarceration’ from which it derives, is both quantitatively and qualitatively indeterminate when applied outside of the context of the US. However, the qualitative indeterminacy of mass supervision only holds so long as one treats the word ‘mass’ as being an analogy to mass consumption. This chapter therefore considers an alternative construction of ‘mass’ punishment in terms of mass production. Comparing the philosophies of production associated with Henry Ford and William Morris with the scholarship of Michel Foucault and Fergus McNeill reveals that mass supervision can authentically claim to be qualitatively ‘massive’, given the bespoke and one-on-one nature of traditional supervision. It is thus possible to speak coherently of ‘mass supervision’ in an international context, although this negative conception of a problem invites questions about the best solution that it generally leaves open.

Neoliberalism has profoundly influenced the relationship between law and the state. Market rhetoric and ideology have fostered Janus faces of law, a double vision of law where both sides of the face adhere to one another through neoliberalism. One face relies on market values and individual liberty, seemingly favoring the reduction of state authority, actually to enhance law’s power. The other Janus face, also drawing on values of market efficiency and individual responsibility, expands criminal justice and its role in the state. Together the Janus faces of law diminish democratic values and practices of law in favor of economic growth, efficient governance, and punishment.

The militarization of police has garnered great attention in recent decades. Bolstered by the wars on drugs and terrorism, police agencies have been receiving military weapons and equipment since the 1033 Program was authorized by the Department of Défense. A recent American Civil Liberties Union investigation on police raids found that militarization has occurred with almost no oversight. They studied more than 800 paramilitary raids and found that almost 80% were for ordinary law enforcement purposes like serving search warrants in people’s homes; only 7% were for genuine emergencies, such as barricade or hostage situations. Most compelling, the raids disproportionately targeted people of color. This chapter traces the history of police militarization in America, and how it has targeted and adversely affected minority communities.

The visibility and impact of young activists is evident in 2020 more than ever, most clearly in the Black Lives Matter movement, but also among climate strikers, water protectors, March for Our Lives organizers, and even TikTok users and K-pop music fans. The ambivalence with which adults have responded – from pride to dismissal to demonization – has its roots in implicit yet pervasive assumptions about young people stretching back to the early nineteenth century. Through a brief historical sketch, I demonstrate that the contemporary concept of the “American teenager” is the product of a series of social, economic, and political changes in the United States and that this concept undermines youth activism and gives license to adults to dismiss young peoples' justified anger at injustice. This essay contends that adultism, and specifically ephebiphobia – the fear and loathing of young people – dominates today's cultural perceptions of youth in the United States and contributes to policies in education and law enforcement that have domesticated and criminalized young people, undermining their political power. Understanding of the historical factors that shape adults' attitudes toward young peoples' capabilities as activists is a first step to improving and sustaining collaboration between youth and adults in social movements.