Search results

Purpose – This study examines the legal system's responses to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans particularly in the first two weeks after the storm. During this period, issues of law and order were a primary concern of government decision makers, and these issues framed those of rescue of and aid to the survivors.

Approach – The chapter draws on the analytic concept of the carceral state as it is publicly displayed in official reactions to disaster rumors of disorder and violence. The empirical focus is on policing activity and on events at the Orleans Parish Prison and Camp Greyhound, a temporary detention center established after the storm.

Findings – Largely unfounded rumors of disorder, including roaming gangs, extensive looting, rape, and murder, fueled the emphasis on law and order and policing and carceral decisions of officials. Actions intended to facilitate an individual's survival or comfort or evacuation were often treated as criminal. New Orleans became a prison city.

Originality – The analysis develops the concept of a “prison city” as an embodiment of the carceral state and suggests that the carceral state prompts and reinforces rumors about disorder and the tendency to designate policing and incarceration as essential first responses to disasters in the United States.

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.

This chapter draws on feminist theorizing on rape culture and victim blaming, and proposes a concept, racialized victim blaming, as a useful tool for understanding discourse on state violence.

The concept of racialized victim blaming is applied to historically analyze the genesis of the carceral state, and deconstruct public debates on police shootings and immigration crises.

This chapter argues that racialized victim blaming is used as a discursive tool to legitimize and mystify state violence projects. Officials and the media use racialized logics and narratives to blame the victims of state violence for their own suffering, justifying continued or increased state violence.

The concept of victim blaming is most often associated with violence against women. Here I demonstrate that victim blaming is also a useful tool for understanding state violence, particularly when attention is given to the place of racializing narratives.

This chapter explores the language of anti-violence activists, university coordinators, and due-process activists concerned with Title IX and campus sexual violence. Using an analysis of 32 in-depth interviews with anti-violence activists, due-process activists, and campus Title IX coordinators, the authors identify key themes in Title IX discourse, including ideas about cultural change and safety. In some instances, activists and coordinators discussed the need for cultural change, though often without agreeing on which campus cultures must be confronted. The authors also found the influence of the dominant discourse of the victims’ rights movement in interview subjects’ emphasis on safety and paternalism.

Individual, interpersonal, and societal transformation will require continually working through the past. In this chapter, I process how inequalities contextualized my identity formation in the Southeastern United States. Racism, colonization, environmental degradation, misogyny, and homophobia shaped the institutions central to my Appalachian socialization – namely family, education, and law. Then, when the criminal punishment system interfered with one of my earliest intimate relationships, it sparked my interest and commitment to prison abolition. Ultimately, I find creativity and accountability, both personally and structurally, essential for potential transformation.

The purpose of this paper is to make visible the connections libraries have to carceral systems and how library workers replicate carceral behavior through care.

This paper uses interdisciplinary research methods in the fields of library science, criminology, feminist studies, Black studies and abolition to examine the role of libraries as locations of carceral care.

Libraries, through their history and funding as well as their roles within society as educators and social service providers, have the components necessary to act out carceral care; libraries by extension can and do participate in forms of carceral care.

There has been much work on carceral care in the fields of social work and education, but to date, there has been little to no scholarship on how libraries work within the landscape of carceral care. This article builds upon the work of others to help understand how it applies to libraries.

Research shows that the physical locations of correctional facilities often contribute to environmental hazards. Research also shows that correctional facilities are often sited near hazardous or undesirable land(s). In combination, incarcerated individuals may be at increased risk of experiencing negative health consequences because of exposure to various environmental harms. This is especially alarming as incarcerated individuals lack the capacity to decide where they are detained. In these cases, health issues that may have developed while detained may extend beyond incarceration. Furthermore, incarcerated individuals are not protected by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice policies.

Using a case study approach, the authors examine two specific correctional facilities in the USA to not only demonstrate the various environmental harms that incarcerated individuals encounter but also highlight carceral spaces as sites of environmental violations.

Additionally, the authors address the negative health consequences incarcerated individuals report because of exposure to these harms. They also argue that creating safer communities requires more than reducing crime and preventing criminal victimization. Creating safer communities also includes promoting environmental safety and protection from hazards that cause sickness and disease.

This work contributes to an emerging and growing body of literature that examines the intersection of carceral studies and environmental justice.

Intergenerational confinement is an under-recognized, policy-driven issue which greatly impacts Indigenous and racialized peoples in countries with ongoing colonial legacies. Numerous policy solutions enacted over colonial history have exacerbated instead of mitigated this situation. This chapter advances an improved understanding of the impacts of carceral legacies, moving beyond the dominant focus of parental incarceration in the literature. Focusing on Indigenous peoples, multiple generations in families and communities have been subjected to changing methods of confinement and removal. Using critical policy analysis and interview research, this chapter interrogates these intergenerational impacts of carceral policy-making in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 124 people in the three case countries, this chapter centers perspectives of people who have been intergenerationally confined in carceral institutions. With a goal of transformation, it then explores an alternative orientation to policy-making that seeks to acknowledge, account for, and address the harmful direct and indirect ripple-effects of carceral strategies over generations.