Injustice in Black and White

Chapter 4 examines the divergent narratives leveraged by White and Black Americans to make sense of their carceral experiences. In-depth interviews suggest that Whites arrive at a sense of injustice through the lens of class, whereas Blacks centralize race, layered with classed undertones. Data from the Harvard-Kaiser Foundation African American Men’s Survey (AAMS 2006) supports this perspective. Yet, when they view their experiences through the lens of injustice, both groups translate their systemic analyses into political action. Findings from the NCPS suggest that the mobilizing effect is most pronounced among those with proximal contact and is particularly important for the participation of Black Americans, since among this group absent injustice proximal contact is negatively associated with participation.

Mobilized by Injustice

Chapter 1 introduces many research questions, around which the rest of the volume organized. Under what conditions are individuals mobilized by criminal justice experiences and under what conditions do these experiences lead to demobilization? What is the central mechanism connecting criminal justice contact to political mobilization outcomes? Do mobilization and withdrawal vary by racial group? Lastly, does political mobilization and withdrawal vary by type of activity? Chapter 1 further situates the inquiry in a longer history of resistance around issues related to criminal justice, outlines the methodological approach of the research, and gives an overview of the remainder of the manuscript.

Policing Latinos

Local enforcement of federal immigration policy is a new frontier for the use of extensive surveillance and monitoring, key tools of the criminal justice system. These tactics are deployed to target undocumented immigrants with a criminal background, but they impact a much wider set of individuals. Chapter 2 thus demonstrates the widespread impacts of punitive immigration policy on non-criminal, non-immigrant Latinos. Two datasets inform the quantitative analysis. The first is the 2015 Latino National Health and Immigration Survey (LNHIS 2015), and the second is the Pew Hispanic Center 2008 National Survey of Latinos (NSL 2008). Turning the focus to Latinos uncovers the efficiency with which criminal justice policy can be deployed against the nation’s largest minority group, demonstrates the power of familial ties to mobilize, and highlights that the racially targeted nature of the carceral state itself creates a collective fund for political action.

“All Prisoners Are Political”

Chapter 6 draws out the implications of the finding that personal and proximal contact can catalyze political action. The theory of mobilization does not try to minimize the deeply negative consequences experienced by custodial citizens, their families, and their communities. Instead, as a concept, a sense of systemic injustice attempts to reconcile that duality and offer a theoretical framework that accurately speaks to the present political moment. When taken together, findings from several datasets and numerous interviews all point in a direction supportive of the argument that when individuals externalize their negative experiences with the system, they are mobilized. Chapter 6 situates the book in the literature overall—highlighting contributions to policy feedbacks, social movements, and research on racial and ethnic politics—and identifies areas for future research.

The Political Consequences of Distrust

Over 50% of Blacks and Latinos and nearly 30% of Whites have proximal contact with the criminal justice system. This group of people experience the consequences of the carceral state vicariously via a loved one, but do not face such extraordinary resource and efficacy barriers to civic and political engagement as do their custodial counterparts. Diminished trust in government that results from negative proximal encounters with the carceral state can be leveraged into increased political action. This is true for all three racial subgroups, but race structures the narratives by which individuals make sense of their experiences with injustice. Chapter 2 defines personal and proximal contact, identifies the social consequences of contact, and develops a theory by which contact can politically mobilize.

The Political Logic of Injustice

Chapter 3 mainly aims to offer evidence for the claim that a sense of systemic injustice links personal and proximal contact to political mobilization. Findings from the National Crime and Politics Survey (NCPS) empirically validate that criminal justice contact can mobilize and show, crucially, that a sense of injustice can moderate the otherwise demobilizing effects of contact. The chapter’s secondary aim chapter is to offer empirical evidence for the claim that contact with a CBO is an institutional mechanism that can increase participation among custodial citizens. The importance of CBO contact to participation increases with the intensity of contact with the criminal justice system. To support this view, the chapter draws on the Chicago Area Survey (CAS) collected in 2014 and demonstrates that CBO contact plays a critical role in mobilizing custodial citizens.