honoraria and felon fund

sometimes when I give a talk these days, people offer me an honorarium. i guess this marks movement beyond the who is chris uggen? career stage, into the short-lived but delightful overrated stage. In academic life, an honorarium is simply payment to visit, lecture, review books for publishers, and do those other scholarly things we do. more formally, an honorarium is payment to any professional for services that do not legally or traditionally require a fee.

aside from travel reimbursements, i never request money to visit or talk. such visits are too much fun -- people treat you very well, the audiences are friendly and laugh at your jokes, and the intellectual exchange is great. the only downside is reentry shock when returning home to piles of laundry and dishes, students who are somewhat less excited about your lectures, and buying your own drinks. i try to give colloquia or talks whenever the schedule permits, though i try to limit guest-lecturing in actual classes to the minnversity unless i'm also doing a department talk.

no matter the amount, my benefactors always characterize it as a “small honorarium” or a “token.” sometimes said amount approximates my weekly take-home pay; other times it is smaller but never trivial. that is, if they are only going to give you ten dollars, they don’t call it an “honorarium.” instead, they call it “lunch.” one kind and generous host, who clearly had never seen my car, said that he hoped that their small honorarium ($500!) would not insult me. we use such language, i suppose, because actual famous people who get honoraria are either too rich or too pure to be be tainted by $500. so, we talk as though such amounts are trivial because donald trump (or bill cosby or bill clinton or nelson mandela) might really be insulted by a speaker's fee of $500. when inviting speakers to my department, i learned that a few famous sociologists -- often those the grad students would most like to see -- charge five-figure speaking fees. i guess they might be insulted by $500 too.

i’m never insulted, but I often feel guilty taking money to talk (i feel much less guilty taking money to review books because, well, i'm not the most voracious reader in the discipline). when a department chair hands me a check after a visit, however, it feels a little like bringing dirty cash into the pure house of love (just leave the money on the nightstand, honey). of course, i report my outside earnings to the government and the minnversity on a report of professional activities form. i also try to think of productive ways to spend it to assuage the guilt:

1. direct honoraria to charities. i sometimes try to redirect the honoraria to some group or charity i find worthy or interesting. last year i tried to divert an honorarium to a musician's hurricane relief fund. unfortunately, that created a hassle for the accountants. so, they still ended up cutting me a personal check.

2. formally redistribute honoraria to research assistants. sometimes i've involved grad students in public criminology work that does not pay or pays very little. so, i've cashed my check and then written them a personal check. because i'm still liable for the taxes on the income -- and i'm taxed at a much higher rate than the students -- my accountant thought this was about the funniest thing he'd ever heard. "ha ha! that's a good one - you're a real smart professor, all right. how long did you go to school? and you're teaching my kids?"

3. informally redistribute honoraria. this is a little sketchier. instead of cutting an actual check, i just try to buy meals and libations at conferences and such for grad students and friends. these are expenses i feel a little guilty about when the mastercard bill comes, but i assuage the "taking money off the family table to live it up in san francisco" guilt if i've got a little "honoraria" money offsetting it.

4. shovel it into the family furnace. sometimes i just put it into the checking account, where it burns away immediately, leaving not a trace of evidence that it ever actually existed.

none of these seem satisfactory. i'd really like to find some way to use the honoraria more meaningfully and productively. so, i've got a new idea, inspired by joseph 'jazz' hayden, a formerly incarcerated person. a few years ago, mr. hayden quieted a large group of lefty academics, activists, and policy types by raising a simple question. i don't remember his exact words, but it was something like, "i'm so happy and proud to see all you fine professors and experts here this morning to talk about prisoners. all your writing and talks and concern and activity is so very important. but can you just just give me one example and tell me one little thing that any of you have done to help the brothers in the penitentiary?"

ouch. his question really got to me. i've been making good money for the past decade talking and writing about crime and reintegration, but what have i really done to help somebody who is trying to rebuild their life after prison? not much. i've given tiny amounts to research organizations such as the sentencing project and the council on crime and justice, but nothing to former prisoners themselves. i hope my research and teaching counts for something, of course, but it seems stupid to worry about how to get rid of money when there are so many in need. so, i'm going to try another approach.

5. start a felon fund. henceforth, i'm going to redirect the honoraria into a little felon fund. my goal is to build a scholarship or fellowship for somebody returning from the system and giving it their best shot.

i'm not sure whether to direct the felon fund toward expungement or education or some other aspect of reentry, but the important thing is to get started. i figure that if i blog about it, i'll have to get off my butt and do it. what kind of sleazeball would write about setting up such a fund and then not actually follow through? given my, ahem, slowness in accomplishing any non-academic task, i'll try to enlist some help in setting this up (sorry, kim. we'll get the cards out too, i promise). i'll hereby guarantee to kick in at least half of any 2006 honoraria, with a greater percentage coming once i figure out the tax thing. for me, finding a personal answer to jazz hayden's question will be a marathon and not a sprint. the felon fund won't amount to much for some time, but it feels like a small step in the right direction.

conferring with interested publics

i did a conference call yesterday, tied to the release of on your own without a net: the transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. the book has chapters on homelessness, mental health, juvenile justice, foster care, disabilities, mental disorders, and other issues. my piece with sara wakefield discussed difficulties facing young adults coming home from the criminal justice system. i think that conducting and disseminating research in interaction with affected communities is an important public sociology and policy sociology task. so, i'm usually happy to participate in such calls when i feel qualified.

here's how it worked. connect for kids publicized the date, time, and call-in number to its mailing list. some of these folks called in at the time to listen, email questions, or ask questions directly of the panelists. we had 5 presenters, each with about 10 minutes to talk before taking questions. we were asked to start with a brief review of the data in the chapter (e.g., trends), but then focus our remarks on policy solutions (e.g., what do we do about it?). approximately 130 people were listening, with a mix of policy folks, advocates, and on-the-ground practitioners and program coordinators.

the other presenters were real experts on their topics (e.g., john hagan on homeless adolescents, mark courtney on foster care) who did a terrific job speaking to the policy and practitioner audience. i too tried my best to give a responsible overview of the field without getting bogged down in statistics or jargon. everybody seemed to make 3 or 4 take-home points that were reasonable and constructive. relative to the call-in talk radio i've done, this audience seemed well-informed and quite expert in their fields.

that said, i was struck by the real-world concreteness of the questions relative to our 20,000-foot aerial view answers. for example, one woman with a teenage son in the mental health system asked for some guidance or suggestions on transitioning out of care, but we pretty much replied in abstractions and generalities. i would have been similarly stumped if a caller had asked whether her felony conviction prevented her from getting, say, a fireworks license in albuquerque, new mexico. even though i'd call myself an expert on felon exclusions, i'd likely do what any non-expert would: start googling. lacking much on-the-ground experience ourselves(or a staff to chase things down), individual academics have trouble bridging this gap. i learn a great deal from the journalists, practitioners, and felons who ask me questions (e.g., ohio? no I didn't know that. who is pushing the legislation? does it look like it will pass?), so i now make it a point to interrogate my interrogators whenever possible.

during yesterday's call-in questioning i had the distinct sense that the audience probably had more useful answers than the panelists -- and that they could help frame more interesting questions for the next round of research. for me, such conference calls illustrate burawoy's distinction between simply disseminating our work to affected publics versus doing work in dialogue with those publics. dissemination is a good and worthy endeavor, of course, and more of us should probably do more of it. engaging in dialogue with affected publics throughout the research process, however, might help produce rich scholarship of even greater utility.

janklow's occupational restrictions

former south dakota governor bill janklow was convicted of felony second-degree manslaughter and misdemeanors for reckless driving, speeding, and running a stop sign in january 2004. "wild bill" had long boasted about his speeding and had amassed numerous citations, but this time he sped through a stop sign and his cadillac struck and killed motorcyclist randy scott.

in addition to paying a fine, janklow served 100 days in jail and resigned his seat in the u.s. house. i'm writing about him now because the south dakota supreme court decided this month to reinstate his law license. judge glen severson, writing for the high court:

"While there are public concerns regarding Janklow's driving, there was no evidence presented to suggest that the public needs protection from Janklow's conduct as an attorney."

that's the funny thing about occupational sanctions that apply broadly to all felons -- they often have very little to do with public safety. in california, felons are barred from some 261 job titles. in new york, ineligible occupations include barber shop owner, boxer/wrestler, commercial feed distributor, and emergency medical technician. in florida, the list includes acupuncturist, speech-language pathologist, and cosmetologist. most convicted cosmetologists, of course, lack the means to mount an appeal to the state supreme court. one st. paul pioneer press reader reacted to janklow's story this way:

Different standard for Janklow?
I read with interest the Jan. 6 story about former South Dakota lawmaker Bill Janklow's triumph over adversity ("Janklow can resume his law practice"). We should all remember that this comes after being convicted for offenses resulting in a motorcyclist's death. By contrast, an acquaintance was fired from his job as a car mechanic and was told that he couldn't pick up a wrench for five years, provided his record remained clean. His sin? Driving while drunk. There is no defense for this behavior from anyone. I will point out, however, that Janklow has been allowed to restart his practice although he hasn't completed his probation — all before my friend can change your oil. How many standards do we have?
PATRICK QUINN

the felons that i interviewed argued for more narrowly-tailored collateral sanctions -- in housing, receipt of public assistance, student aid, voting rights, parental rights, and firearms rights in addition to occupational restrictions. for example, some would ask "what did my assault conviction have to do with voting? i could see losing my vote if i tried to rig an election or something." janklow's lawyers made the same argument -- what did his manslaughter conviction have to do with lawyering? the standard answer, made by supporters such as george will, is that felons have shown themselves to be "untrustworthy" citizens and therefore blanket restrictions are merited. yet this logic is pushed to absurdity by the dizzying array of lifetime bans imposed on felons.

if i could reinvent the parole and prisoner reentry process, i'd like to see all collateral sanctions imposed on a case-by-case basis in a reentry court. if someone has been convicted of molesting children, then it makes good sense to restrict them from occupations (such as school bus driver) in which they have access to children. i would similarly restrict mr. janklow from driving a school bus, but would likely be sympathetic to his desire to practice law or to pick up a wrench as a mechanic once he has served his sentence. under the current system, only those felons with the information, time, and resources to mount a clemency drive will ever see their rights restored.

mandatory sentencing

i posted recently about my preference for indeterminate sentences (warts n' all) over mandatory minimums. frankly, one can find egregious miscarriages of justice under every sentencing scheme. nevertheless, the federal drug laws take the cake. here's the latest from law.com.

david powell, a 32-year-old with an IQ of 72, was sentenced to life-without-parole for distributing crack. he had two "nickel and dime" drug possession convictions at 16 and 17, which required judge david hurd of new york to lock him up forever on his third drug conviction. as appears to be the case for mr. powell, the full weight of such mandatories often falls upon the "mules" rather than the "kingpins." the only way powell could have avoided a life sentence would have been to provide "substantial assistance" to the prosecution. as a small-timer, however, he couldn't offer anything (or, more precisely, anybody) of prosecutorial value. here's how judge hurd sees it:

"The increment of harm in this case bears no rational relationship to the increment of punishment that I must impose," Hurd said at a sentencing proceeding last week in Utica, N.Y. "This is what occurs when Congress sets [a] mandatory minimum sentence which distorts the entire judicial process... . As a result, I am obligated to and will now impose this unfair and, more important, unjust sentence."

aside from injustice, such policies are expensive. although old dudes are generally much less dangerous than young dudes, it costs a lot more to lock them up. in particular, generations of californians will pay sizable medical costs for the aging prison population delivered by that state's two- and three-strike sentencing policies. here are some conservative* back-of-the-envelope calculations from the sentencing project:

Assuming that a typical lifer is sentenced at the age of 30 and will live until 70, we can estimate conservatively that incarceration costs of $20,000 a year from age 30 to age 60 will total $600,000. From age 60 to 70, costs are conservatively at least $40,000 a year, yielding a total lifetime cost of $1 million.

whatever you think of mr. powell's crimes, do we really need to spend a million dollars on him? and these costs don't even consider his lost productivity over the next forty years -- when he could be paying social security and income taxes. there's a nice RAND cost effectiveness analysis by jonathon caulkins and colleagues that attempts to account for some of these complexities. here is the authors' bottom line:

a million dollars spent extending sentences to mandatory minimum lengths would reduce cocaine consumption less than would a million dollars spent on the pre-mandatory-minimum mix of arrests, prosecution, and sentencing. Neither would reduce cocaine consumption or cocaine-related crime as much as spending a million dollars treating heavy users.


*i characterize these estimates as conservative because $20k and $40k are lower than anything else i've seen. it varies by jurisdiction, but i'd guess that $25k and $65k would be closer to the mark in the federal system.

dehumanizing sex offenders

one could devote several blogs to the moral panic surrounding people convicted of sex crimes. the stories are depressing, frustrating, and creepy on many levels, so i don't often follow up on them. but this story, sent by the blog muse last week, and this one from the weekend really caught my eye. i've italicized for emphasis in both excerpts.

GOV PUSHES NEW PRISON FOR PERVS by KENNETH LOVETT New York Post January 11, 2006

ALBANY - The state will build a "pervert prison" , a special maximum-security facility for the most dangerous sex offenders, it was announced yesterday. Gov. Pataki yesterday said the facility is needed to confine 500 convicted sex predators considered too likely to strike again to let back on the streets after their prison terms are over...

Frustrated that the Democrat-controlled Assembly repeatedly blocked civil-confinement legislation, Pataki late last year ordered his administration to "push the envelope" in keeping sex offenders deemed dangerous locked up by using existing law pertaining to the involuntary commitment the mentally ill.

Creating a new facility, which would open in 2009, would allow the mental-health system to keep dangerous sex offenders whose prison terms expire away from nonviolent mentally ill patients, Pataki said.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the governor is "putting the cart before the horse" since the state does not yet have a civil-confinement law on the books. "It's interesting he's prepared to spend money to build yet another prison, but not engage in the kind of evaluation, monitoring, supervision and treatment of high-risk offenders that all the experts agree can significantly reduce the risk or incidents of reoffense," Lieberman said.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the sex offenders now in mental facilities were grilled yesterday by the panel of Manhattan appellate-division judges who are deciding on the constitutionality of the civil commitments. The inmates' lawyers argue that Pataki is doing an end run around the corrections commitment procedures by having the inmates' dangerousness evaluated by state doctors - essentially the governor's own shills. [emphasis added].

okay, i know the story comes from the post, but here's what catches my eye as a sociologist and criminologist:

1. dehumanizing language - isn't the term "sex offender" stigmatizing enough? does the post really need to refer to individuals convicted of sexual crimes as "pervs" or perverts? the term is gratuitous and really imprecise to boot.

2. "after their prison terms are over" - the proposed prison is not for people serving prison sentences, but for those who have already done their time. this sort of do-over for the state has generally withstood constitutional scrutiny for sex offenders, but i'm skeptical that it would for anyone else. as the nyclu points out, states could provide evaluation, treatment, and supervision of sex offenders while they are under criminal sentences.

3. "allow the mental health system" - mental health treatment does not appear to be the primary (or secondary or tertiary) motivation here. sex offenders are deemed mentally ill because they are perceived as dangerous and the mental health system offers another avenue for incapacitating them. i would prefer to see long prison sentences of indeterminate duration, rather than a transfer of authority to the mental health system at the conclusion of a shorter sentence.

4. "push the envelope" - governor pataki must be hearkening back to his days as a top gun fighter pilot here. in this case, it sounds as though the "envelope" is the constitutional protections typically afforded criminal defendants. [what else could he mean here?]

5. "evaluated by state doctors" - however well-intentioned, one could easily imagine abuse potential in a system with no independent evaluation of dangerousness.

perhaps this is me just being paranoid -- too much huxley and orwell in middle school or something. are my fears of abuse exaggerated? if so, it is tough to explain a case reported by the minneapolis strib yesterday. in recent years, minnesota has dramatically expanded its use of civil commitment proceedings for "sexually dangerous persons." today the net has widened to the point that it captures people who were never even charged with sex crimes.

Dwayne Peterson, 25, of Mankato, Minn., has never been convicted of a sex offense or even charged with one. But after completing a prison term for kidnapping a 78-year-old man at gunpoint in 2001, he now sits in the Security Hospital in St. Peter pending civil court proceedings to commit him indefinitely to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person. Peterson wouldn't be the first of the nearly 300 men confined under the program -- from which no one has ever been permanently released -- to be committed without a prior sex-crime conviction. [emphasis added]

at age 25, mr. peterson has completed his court-imposed sentence. it is no exaggeration to say that he may now spend the rest of his life behind bars for a crime that was never even brought to trial. if the allegations (of sexual activity with boys) had been brought to trial, he would almost certainly be acquitted. according to his attorney, there are "no corroborating victim-witnesses for Peterson's accounts."

in minnesota, as in new york, i remain convinced that the goals of such commitment proceedings are incapacitation and retribution rather than rehabilitation or treatment. the fact that none of the 300 men confined under the program has ever been released suggests as much, though i should point out that i am no expert on the inner workings of this system and have never even visited these facilities. nevertheless, i have to ask whether it is good public policy to transfer authority from the criminal justice system to the mental health system in such cases.

just to be clear, i am not suggesting lighter sentences for sex offenders. i'm just as creeped out by the lurid description of sex crimes reported in these stories as everyone else. but i'm also creeped out by the hopeless constitutional no-man's land in which we place individuals convicted of these acts -- or simply suspected of these acts, in the case of mr. peterson. personally, i'm a believer in old-school discretionary parole and indeterminate sentences within the criminal justice system. some will turn out much longer and some will turn out much shorter than the current mandatories. this system was also subject to abuse, of course, but it seems subject to greater reform and oversight than the far slipperier civil commitment procedures we employ today.

oddly, they prefer the party that isn't trying to disenfranchise them

rick ruddell sends word of voting in canadian prisons on friday. incarcerated citizens have been eligible to vote in that nation since 2002, when the supreme court of canada ruled that barring prisoners from voting was contrary to the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. according to ctv, about 25 percent of 35,000 eligible prisoners were expected to cast ballots.

the story quotes conservative leader steven harper as saying, "no, I don't agree with prisoner voting." manitoba inmate jeff power (shown in the ctv photo at left) shaved a maple leaf and liberal 'L' into the side of his head. "We're all voting for the Liberals, just because we want to keep our vote."

here in the states, i'd imagine the republicans would adopt the canadian conservative position and the democrats would be ... skittish. only maine and vermont permit prisoners to vote today and the u.s. supreme court has generally permitted states to disenfranchise prison inmates, probationers, parolees, and even former felons who have completed their sentences.

soctalk january 17 and lawtalks january 28

here's an update on a minntalk this week and a small minnconference (minnminiconference?) next week:

1. i'm speaking with shelly schaefer on voting and the civic reintegration of former prisoners this tuesday as part of the sociology department workshop series. this one was bumped last semester for a really impressive roster of job candidates. the workshops are held in 1109 social sciences from 4-5:15 and all are welcome.

2. those interested in racial disparities in punishment and felon voting research might be more interested in silenced voices: the constitutionality and legality of felon disenfranchisement provisions on saturday, january 28 at the university of minnesota law school. law school professor carl warren is organizing the conference as part of the national civil rights moot court competition, which this year will examine johnson v. bush. all are welcome and attendance is free. attorneys can even get continuing legal education credit* if they contact the organizers in advance.

this should be really good -- i know i'll learn a lot. marc mauer of the sentencing project and race to incarcerate will be speaking on racial disparities. i'm especially eager to meet rep. keith ellison, who has introduced legislation to reenfranchise probationers and parolees. other speakers include catherine weiss of the brennan center, art eisenberg of the nyclu, and gary dickey, counsel and advisor to iowa governor tom vilsack. i'll be doing an overview in the morning session, which will overlap with my department talk. events will be held at the minnesota law school from 9-3, but i don't have the specific rooms yet. here's the tentative schedule:

9:00 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.
Welcome and brief description of the facts and procedural posture of Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida, 405 F. 3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005).

9:10 a.m. to 9:50 a.m.
Overview: Felon Disenfranchisement and Democracy. Prof. Christopher Uggen, Associate Chair, University of Minnesota, Department of Sociology.

9:50 a.m. to Noon. Silenced Voices
Panelists will examine the legal, constitutional, societal and policy-making implications of felon disenfranchisement provisions; measures that have been taken to address them, e.g. executive orders, legislation; and litigation that has challenged them, e.g. Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida; ­Muntaqim v. Coombe­­, 366 F. 3d 102 (2nd Cir. 2004) and Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F. 3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003). The panel will consist of:

• Catherine Weiss, Associate Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The Brennan Center represents the plaintiffÂ’s class in the Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida;
• Art Eisenberg Litigation Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYCLU submitted an Amicus brief in support of the PlaintiffÂ’s position in ­Muntaqim v. Coombe­­;
• Rep. Keith Ellison of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The author of legislation to restore the voting rights of people who have been convicted of felonies and who are on probation or parole;
• Gary Dickey, Jr., General Counsel and Policy Advisor to Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa who by executive order restored the voting rights of ex-felons in Iowa;
• Marc Mauer, Executive Director, Sentencing Project, Washington DC; and
• Clinical Prof. Carl M. Warren, faculty advisor to the University of Minnesota Law SchoolÂ’s Wm. E. McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition, will moderate the panel.

Noon to 1:00 p.m.
Break

1:00 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
Catherine Weiss , Esq. will discuss the standards and appropriate legal analysis of the 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act issues in Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida.

1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Marc Mauer author of ­Race To Incarcerate and Invisible Punishment will examine the staggering racial disparity in incarceration.

*5.6 hours of continuing legal education and judicial education credits (4.6 hours regular credit and 1.0 hours of Elimination of Bias credit) are available.

i'm not a real badass but i play one in my memoirs

james frey is under siege for fabricating big chunks of his monster-selling memoir, a million little pieces. the minneapolis strib had questioned his accounts of surgery without anesthesia and a northwest airlines flight in which he was bleeding, with a hole in his cheek, and covered with "a colorful mixture of spit, snot, urine, vomit and blood." as the smoking gun reports, frey represented the memoir as non-fiction but, to put it charitably, seems to have seriously exaggerated his experiences. here's the short version:

"When recalling criminal activities, looming prison sentences, and jailhouse rituals, Frey writes with a swaggering machismo and bravado that absolutely crackles. Which is truly impressive considering that, as TSG discovered, he made much of it up. The closest Frey has ever come to a jail cell was the few unshackled hours he once spent in a small Ohio police headquarters waiting for a buddy to post $733 cash bond."

i think we should give folks a little wiggle-room on their memoirs, so i feel bad for mr. frey. of course, misrepresenting one's criminal history probably seems like a pathetic way to do masculinity, at least for those over 25. still, i won't deny the seductions of embellishing such experiences. my juvenile delinquency students know that i'll sometimes refer to my experiences in the system. i've never hidden the fact that i was arrested several times at 16 and 17 (mostly for fighting and disorderly conduct) or that i had sleepovers in jails and other secure facilities. it can be useful in showing the discrepancy between the clean flow-chart picture of the system in textbooks and the messy experience of things like juvenile intake from a kid's perspective. but whenever i feel any semblance of "swaggering machismo" in telling such stories, i know i'm starting to embellish -- because it was never like that.

the first and most important reality checks are that i never did time (and certainly not hard time in a state penitentiary), that i've only seen prisons as a visitor or professor, and that i felt and was perceived as a nerd at the time or, more charitably, a hipster doofus or confused kid rather than a badass or tough guy. my guess is that frey has a similar history. this is important because the real badasses sniff out a phony in a second. when i interview men and women in prison, i represent myself as a dork professor rather than someone who has "been there." even if i wanted to sell myself as an ex-con, i couldn't pull it off. similarly, none of my publications on crime make any mention of my own history -- i'm not embarrassed, it is just way too "thin" to be of any use. it certainly affects the kinds of questions i ask and the perspectives i adopt, but it would be the height of phoniness to trade on it.

also, the memory plays tricks. for example, i think i was arrested at 17 for stupidly attacking a bouncer at the cabooze, right down cedar avenue from my current office in minneapolis. if i were writing an account of the evening for my memoirs (or blog, i suppose), it would be tempting to embellish this "fight" (which was probably over in 2.4 seconds) as some sort of gladiator-style struggle and half-remember all sorts of details from all sorts of sources. just like mr. frey, i could see myself writing about being covered with "a colorful mixture of spit, snot, urine, vomit and blood." after 24 years, though, all i can really remember is that the band was wilma and the wilburs. i think i was handcuffed for a long time that night/morning and that it hurt, but that could have been a different night altogether. if the smoking gun investigated my blogoirs, they might discover that it was bullwinkles rather than the cabooze or, worse, that i was not arrested in hennepin county that night (hmm. was it ryan's in ramsey county?).

i'm thinking about embellishment because my son is now a wrestler and musician -- two activities that i explored at 14 too. i thought i was a pretty scrappy wrestler, but had to ask my dad whether i was really any good at it (verdict: fought like hell, but lost as much as i won). i know that i was never a good guitar player ("scrappy" probably applies here as well), though i'm sometimes tempted to embellish my experiences or abilities here too. my delinquent history hasn't really been questioned, though those who knew me at 16 love my little joke about preparing a lifetime to "teach a course in juvenile delinquency."

so, even if mr. frey was never the badass of a million little pieces, he probably had some experiences that were something like the events described in the book. or maybe they were stories he heard in treatment. why do we embellish our deviance? hmmm. edwin lemert noted long ago (1951) that rewards as well as penalties derive from deviant roles. rw connell explains the general swagger and jack katz explicated the specific ways of the badass. now that he's apparently been busted, the arc of frey's story fits goffman's (1961) sad tale, and shadd maruna's redemption scripts might help us figure out his next move.

prediction: his next book is gonna be huge.

far-flung applications of sociological research

i recently received an email from the homeland security institute, a federally funded interdisciplinary think tank for the department of homeland security. they did not ask me to keep the request confidential, so i'll reproduce the main text here:

We are currently working on a project for the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, in which we are cataloging consequence assessment tools/methodologies/suites in an attempt to assess those that have homeland security applications. Political Consequences Methodology has been selected for inclusion into our report. Since this report impinges on matters of national security, we are attempting to make all information as accurate as possible. Would you be so kind as to fill in the table provided and return it to me at the email address below?

the questions in the table seemed designed for researchers who had developed software or other tools far beyond anything i've done (i.e., geographical information systems stuff). i had never thought of my felon voting project with jeff as having homeland security applications, so i don't know why this project was selected. i just did my best with the table and returned it to the institute. the national science foundation funded the research and i'm glad to provide any information i can about it.

i've always sought to do "engaged" scholarship that would somehow be useful. once the work is public, however, i'm always surprised at how it is used. for example, the republican party in washington cited my work in challenging a closely-contested democratic victory. i've heard anecdotally that my study showing job training success among older ex-prisoners was used to cut funding for job training among younger ex-prisoners, which wasn't quite what i'd intended. still, i'm happy as long as the work provides decent social facts that allow for better informed decisions, even if the outcome isn't consistent with my preferences as a citizen. in this case, i'd like to think that the institute's interests have something to do with protecting the integrity of national elections, though i can, of course, think of less virtuous reasons.

when i was just out of college, some of my other work was put to far-flung purposes. i was 22 and working in a madison social service agency when i helped develop software to track the employment and training experiences of people on public assistance. when wisconsin-style "welfare reform" went national, ibm and some locals tried to market the software to all sorts of organizations (including, as i recall, fire departments). i felt a little cheated that i didn't get paid on that venture, since i was making about seven dollars per hour when i did the screen shots with the coders. to be fair, the ibm folks did buy me a nice lunch at pedro's (mmm...chimi) and say nice things about me to my boss.


of course, i'm relieved i didn't have to kill myself rewriting code to somehow satisfy the poor fire department that actually bought the software. i guess the lesson here is mostly caveat emptor for those using our research. still, public sociologists and criminologists would do well to heed warnings of caveat venditor as well.

smilin' mli

when michelle makes a post, she can include a link to a cool west coast story in the seattle times. then, she can include a photo . if she doesn't want to post it right away, she can just save it as a draft.

media and crime trends, 1973-2005

this time of year often brings media requests regarding trends in crime and punishment. answering such calls is important public criminology, but responding can be tricky. reporters often focus on year-to-year changes in rare events such as homicide, but the percent change in such cases can be very misleading. i see my role as providing some context for the local numbers, putting them in historical, national, and international perspective. reporters typically speak with both law enforcement officials and academics, so i try to offer some perspective. i usually focus on 5-, 10-, and 20-year trends and consider the magnitude as well as the direction of change.

by most measures, crime in minneapolis and st. paul rose from 2004 to 2005. this is cause for concern, in part because serious personal crimes such as aggravated assaults and robberies have increased sharply. that said, the base rate of crime in the twin cities is quite low relative to similar-sized cities and relative to local crime rates in the near and distant past. moreover, some of the bad news is a product of legal changes rather than behavioral changes. for example, a new state "strangulation" statute means that many domestic assault cases once considered misdemeanors are now counted among the aggravated assaults in the violent crime index (i learned this speaking with pete crum of the st. paul police department last week). despite the uptick, my take-home message for reporters who want my opinion this year is that national crime rates are at the lowest levels we've seen in forty years and that these are good times rather than bad ones.

here is my evidence for this assertion. rates of serious violent crime -- murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault -- continue a long decline, at least through midyear 2005. the chart above shows the national picture for violence as measured by both victimization (red dashed lines - - -) and crimes reported to police (solid lines). i plotted these on separate y-axes so you can see the relative change in each measure. note that violent victimization has been dropping like a stone since the mid-nineties, as have police reports of these four serious offenses.

the next figure shows that property crimes of burglary, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft also show a decline, although here the rates have flattened since 2002. nevertheless, for both violent and property crimes, victimization levels are at or near record lows, at rates roughly half those of a decade earlier.

of course, none of this makes crime victims or their families feel any better about it, nor does it mean that we no longer need to lock our doors or that we can scale back investments in law enforcement (punishment is another matter). it just means that rates of serious crime are lower today than they were 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. good news, right?

democracy's ghosts

i just screened democracy's ghosts: how 5 million americans have lost the right to vote, an aclu documentary made by off-ramp films.

the 34-minute film features some persuasive interviews with former felons and activists, as well as lani guinier and alex keyssar of harvard, marc mauer of the sentencing project, congressman/civil rights icon john lewis, evangelist/watergate icon chuck colson, and actor charles dutton. the dvd also includes a 10-minute short version, 5 "expert perspective" segments (where i pop up briefly -- i did a quick interview in dc on my way to maryland this spring), 5 issue-specific pieces, a graphic video, and a short trailer, which you can see in quicktime or windows media player. the film is designed as an "advocacy tool," so it doesn't give much time to the perspectives of disenfranchisement defenders such as roger clegg. florida governor jeb bush is shown in clemency hearings, but i doubt he'll be using this particular footage for campaign ads.

that said, i think it could be useful in provoking classroom discussion in criminology or political sociology or racial and ethnic studies courses. i'm too close to really judge whether students would find it interesting, but the film seems lively and well-informed to me. it was nice to see some research on the issue put to use, albeit without the caveats that we always try to include in the articles. the dvd touches on the racial history and impact of disenfranchisement, the numbers affected, recidivism and reentry, and other issues that jeff, and melissa, and angie and i have studied. my quick google search couldn't find a site for the film yet, but www.democracysghosts.org should be online anytime now. i got my copy of the dvd through rachel devaney at commtemp@aclu.org.

kiwi camara and racist speech

volokh reports a strange tale involving the yale law journal's decision to publish an author who used racist speech in his online notes. kiwi camara posted notes from his property class in a harvard law outline bank, complete with a "disclaimer" noting that they "may contain racially offensive shorthand."

on shelley v. kraemer, a case involving racially restrictive covenants, camara wrote: "Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?"

yep! that counts as "racially offensive shorthand" in my book. when the notes came to light, yale law students circulated a petition that began as follows:

THE PETITION
We, the undersigned students of Yale Law School, request that the leadership of the Yale Law Journal reconsider its decision to publish the work of Kiwi Camara and to have him speak at its Symposium this Spring...

yale law journal nevertheless decided to publish, writing a lengthy response in defense of its decision. as social scientists who've written for such outlets know, law reviews operate way, way, way differently than american sociological review or criminology. law faculty submit the same article to dozens of journals simultaneously. then, student-run editorial boards read them all and make offers to those deemed worthy. after the faculty ruthlessly exploit the free labor of the law students, however, the students exact vengeance by obsessively critiquing every footnote. here's the sort of email exchange that plays out over a few weeks:

journal: please provide a citation to your assertion on page 1 that "criminologists study the life course."
author: no problem. please cite as "sampson and laub 1993."
journal: i will need a page number for this citation.
author: ok, let's go with page 8.
journal: sampson and laub make a related point on page 8, noting that the life course "is studied" and that criminologists study "crime" but they do not indicate that "criminologists study the life course." please provide a proper citation. with page numbers.
author: i tell you what -- let's just strike the sentence and any other references to criminologists studying the life course.
journal: we will strike the sentence if you really think that is best.

but i digress. there are all sorts of distracting digressions to this case. for example, the precocious mr. camara was age 17 when he wrote the notes, which led some lawprofs to the "adolescent racist boys will be adolescent racist boys" defense. the very clever but slightly-less-precocious students, in contrast, think that the doogie howsers of the world should be held to the same standards as any other students. finally, mr. camara has issued something sort of like an apology. still, this doesn't address the larger issue of whether to publish work by known or suspected racists (or sexists, or homophobes...).

i'm guessing that most sociology journals "pre-ject" papers by known or suspected racists, sending them out for external review but reading them and their reviews with a jaundiced eye. if such sentiments came to light following formal acceptance, however, they would likely abide by their publication decision unless (and this is an important 'unless') such sentiments had some plausible bearing on the article's findings or conclusions. what about your favorite sociology and criminology journals? would they, could they, withdraw their acceptance on the basis of offensive speech that came to light? is racist speech different than other forms of offensive speech in this regard?

now that i think about it, i remember writing racist speech in my first year sociology notes --quotes taken verbatim from durkheim and weber.

bringing human rights back home

tomorrow night i'll be participating in bringing human rights back home, a minnesota human rights center conference. i'm excited about the free evening performance of i voted for gummi bears, ochen k.'s one-person multi-media show on the history and impact of felon disenfranchisement. i've seen a preview of ochen's show and it is truly amazing -- surprisingly funny and personal, but also well-informed by the social science literature. his performance is at 7 pm friday in mondale hall of the university of minnesota law school, 229 19th ave s., minneapolis. i'll be on a panel of discussants immediately following the performance from 8-9 pm.

snitchin'

a dvd entitled "stop snitching" features armed men threatening those who would roll over on others as police informants (e.g., "we got a lot of rats up here we wanna expose ... it ain’t too many of ‘em, cause we deal with them”). stop snitching dvds and t-shirts quickly fanned outward from baltimore to pittsburgh, boston and elsewhere, fueled in part by the appearance of basketball player carmelo anthony in the video and entrepreneurs publicizing the phenomenon with sites such as stopsnitching.com.

i haven't seen any t-shirts in the midwest, but the dvd has been a very hot topic on the east coast for the past year. in fact, the baltimore police even put together a short video response to stop snitching, titled keep talking.

volokh reports on the constitutionality of seizing stop snitching t-shirts and the ejection from courtrooms of those wearing them. the story also raises sociological questions about the use of informants, police-community relations, and violence as "self-help." the phenomenon seems to be driven in part by law enforcement practices that rely increasingly on the use of informants. as the police have upped the pressure on informants, the "inform-ees" have applied countervailing pressure: violence and the threat of violence.

so, what's the solution? large-scale use of snitches can be divisive to a community and jailhouse informants are notoriously inaccurate. still, witness intimidation and "street justice" can be absolutely debilitating (in iraq as in baltimore). with regard to the video's popularity, it has clearly tapped into the strained relationships between young african american men and law enforcement, as well as the continuing popularity of thug iconography.

on the latter point, i was struck by a recent picture of mr. anthony posing in what appeared to be his home office. he had distanced himself from stop snitching, saying: "I'm completely against violence and drugs — that's not me... I've lost friends to violence. I would never support anybody harming anyone... I just want to help." fair enough for the nba role model, but his role models appear to be a little more comfortable with violence. anthony was seated before two enormous framed mugshot portraits of john gotti and al capone. the photo was a mirror image of former madison police chief david couper's office. couper, a minnesota sociology ph.d., had large posters of mahatma gandhi and martin luther king in his office. leave it to a madison cop to spruce up the office with the iconography of non-violence.

lafave sentence

cnn.com reports that debra beasley lafave, a 25-year-old florida teacher, pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior for having sex with a 14-year-old student. she was sentenced to three years of house arrest, seven years probation, and she must register as a sex offender. conditions of her supervision also ban her from profiting financially from her crime.

ms. beasley lafave's photo is already posted on the florida department of law enforcement's sexual predator website. i've gotten somewhat familiar with these sites, since kim gardner began collecting data on the contents of state sex offender registries for her independent thesis project. here is the information that florida provides on debbie lafave:

Sex Offender

Debra Jean Beasley
Alias: Debra J Beasley, Debbie Lafave, Debra Lafave, Debra Beasley Lafave

Status: Community Control
Department of Corrections #: T47535		Date of Birth: 08-28-1980
Race: White	Sex: Female	Height: 5' 07"
Hair: Blond	Eyes: Blue	Weight: 135 lbs.
Scars, Marks, Tattoos: Tattoo Other:Butterfly On Hip; Tattoo Back:Butterfly; Tattoo Back:Chinese Character;
Last Reported Address: 406 12th St Sw, Ruskin, FL 33570-4182
County: Hillsborough	Date Address Entered: 11-24-2005
Qualifying Offense(s): Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old (Principal)
Victim(s): Gender: Male ; Minor? Yes Gender: Unknown ; Minor? Yes

Beasley is a Sex Offender under Florida law. Positive identification cannot be established unless a fingerprint comparison is made.

aside from her gender and the enormous amount of publicity generated by the case, the entry for ms. lafave/beasley is not dissimilar to others on the site. her age, race, and offense are fairly typical, as are her tattoos. some observers have commented on her physical attractiveness, but even this characteristic is probably not that unusual in the databases (though nobody but sinatra actually looks good in a mug shot). nor is her crime all that unusual. for example, i searched under "beasley" and quickly found a similar case. bobby beasley is also 25 and also convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 16.

Sex Offender Bobby Beasley
Alias: Bobby Ray Beasley, Red Beasley

Status: State Incarceration
Department of Corrections #: H08933		Date of Birth: 05-22-1980
Race: White	Sex: Male	Height: 6' 02"
Hair: Red	Eyes: Brown	Weight: 178 lbs.
Scars, Marks, Tattoos: Tattoo Right Chest Broken Heart Tattoo Right Chest Broken Heart Tattoo Tat
Last Reported Address: Dept. of Corrections, FL
County:	Date Address Entered: 12-05-2001
Qualifying Offense(s): Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16 (Principal)
Victim(s): Gender: Unknown ; Minor? Yes

Beasley is a Sex Offender under Florida law. Positive identification cannot be established unless a fingerprint comparison is made.

If further information is needed, please contact the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Sexual Offender/Predator Unit at (1-888-357-7332) between the hours of 8am and 6.30pm, Monday through Friday

i next searched under "debra" and easily found similar florida cases involving females (e.g., debra favre, who also got some publicity). i think the worldwide attention to lafave's situation is likely due to a combo platter of newsworthiness:

• she's a teacher entrusted with middle school kids, which touches upon parents' fears;
• the case is set against a backdrop of moral panic over (mostly) male sex offenders, particularly those who victimize children;
• at 14, the victim in this case was "only" two years from the median age at first intercourse for males;
• she has posed for calendars, which simultaneously validates her physical attractiveness and sexual desirability to males and makes for great television;
• and, in a society in which males are viewed as either sexual predators or protectors, we're simply flummoxed by the idea of an adolescent male receiving "unwanted" sexual attention from an attractive young woman.

my point here is that debbie lafave's crimes are far more typical on sex offender registries than the coverage of her story would suggest. the cultural image of the sex offender is a person such as joseph duncan, accused of murder, kidnapping, and rape. yet we apply the same generalized label -- designation as a sex offender -- to duncan, lafave, and thousands of other lafaves.

lafave's sentence will seem light to many, since she isn't doing any jail or prison time beyond house arrest (i mean, even martha went to prison for a few months). for me, it highlights the difficulties in applying gradational punishments for criminal sexual conduct when a categorical "sex offender" stigma is applied to such diverse behaviors.

can you drink your way to a safer neighborhood?

the west coast blog muse alerts me to a seattle times story on crime and community. residents of the seattle south park neighborhood were upset about the putatively seedy county line bar and the drug sales and prostitution that surrounded it. rather than mobilize against the bar, however, they actually started drinking there. interesting idea, right? criminologists generally believe that even infrequent and informal neighboring can help reduce crime. in this case, residents are doing their neighboring on-site during community happy hours every monday.

if we are to believe the story, such meetings have coincided with crime reductions in the area. an earlier post-intelligencer story was more pessimistic, but featured this quote from organizer joel clement:

"It was time to show the proprietors that there's an upside to that trend," he said. "My theory is, crime tends to migrate toward sociocultural vacuums. So let's fill the vacuum. And drinking a beer is not a lot of work on anybody's part."

i like the idea of at least attempting reintegrative rather stigmatizing sanctions -- whether for individuals, bars, or other community institutions. my guess is that some of the worst stereotypes have likely been dispelled by the practice. nothing comes for free, of course, as "sociocultural vacuums" are in the eye of the beholder. most worrisome, seattle may have lost a great dive bar in the process. i'm guessing that the county line will have to bring in a golden tee golf machine, ferns, and heirloom balsamic goat cheese salads to keep the upscale residents coming back.

[photos by karen ducey in seattle post-intelligencer story]

upcoming conferences

sarah walker, a grad student in the minnesota political science department, sent word of two interesting conferences:

• a working papers conference on the penal state is planned for april 21-22 in berkeley, ca.
• a conference on america's incarceration addiction will be meeting in chapel hill, nc on february 18.

both gather a strong group of scholars, activists, and other experts, reflecting a burgeoning research interest in criminal punishment.

2005 criminology meetings

i'm just back from the 2005 american society of criminology annual meetings in toronto. we had a fine conference at the royal york (though it was expensive for the student members) and near-record attendance. i love the meetings and the society has been a great home for me since my early grad school days. both meeting and society are less formal and more interdisciplinary than american sociological association gatherings: almost anyone who wants to get onto a session can get onto a session and they usually have some interesting things to say.

i'm currently the executive secretary of the organization, which means that i type board meeting minutes, scoop a lot of ice cream, and sign off on awards. plus, i really rake in the loot on secretary's day. next year's meetings will be held in los angeles, and the theme under new president gary lafree will be "democracy, crime, and justice." i'll be organizing sessions on crime and politics, chairing an article award committee, and working on a long-term planning committee for the society. i'm hoping to reach out to non-asc members interested in voting, politics, and crime who might not otherwise attend the meetings. i'll post more on this in spring, but if you would like to present a paper on this or another crime topic next november, you only need to submit an abstract by march to get on the program.

civic reintegration through tough guys for tots

i had a great meeting with michael bischoff of the council on crime and justice recently, where we discussed the sort of civic engagement work that could be done behind prison walls. minnesota has a number of inmate-based restorative justice groups. michael wrote to me today with word that the men of faribault prison are holding their second annual "tough guys for tots" walk this Saturday. All money raised will go to the local rice county toys for tots program. Last year the inmates (who earn very little wages) pledged quite a bit themselves.

if you normally give to such toy programs around the holidays, you might consider making a donation and sponsoring a walker this year. in addition to helping out the kids, you can help nurture a prisoner's pro-social impulses and actions. if interested, you can send a check marked "tough guys for tots" to:

MCF-Faribault
Attn: Jay Welborn
1101 Linden
Faribault, MN 55021-6400

u.s. supreme court refuses to hear johnson v. bush

from yahoo news:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Monday to review Florida's lifetime ban on voting rights for convicted felons, a case that would have had national implications for millions of would-be voters.

i worked for several years, took a lengthy deposition, and wrote an expert report on this case (johnson v. bush), so the news is disappointing.

heartfelt pleas for quality / too intense for class?

who says the war on drugs hasn't been effective? the daily mirror reports another celebrity chagrined at the quality of cocaine these days. current crooner and former sexy person rod stewart reports:

I don't know why anyone would want to take coke now ... It was different in my day, because it was all so much purer. Now these dealers mix it with salt, washing powders, anything they can get their hands on. Kids just don't know what they're taking.

this reminded me of other recent complaints by noted cocaine experts, such as current velvet revolver vocalist scott weiland. in an esquire interview this april, weiland described the good old days:

it was not that nasty, gasoline-tasting, cat-piss-smelling sh*t that they have nowadays. It was f*ckin' shale, you know? It was mother-of-pearl stuff that they used to have in the old days. It was so hard, you had to slice it real thin with a razor blade, like little slices of garlic. They don’t even make that sh*t anymore.

weiland's imagery is evocative, isn't it? i can see (mother of pearl), smell (cat-piss), feel (hard, like garlic slices), and taste (gasoline) the differences he's describing. weiland's imagery is richer than rod stewart's, i think, because stewart was only a "casual" user.

weiland was anything but casual about cocaine and heroin. his first-person account of his love affair with these drugs is riveting. i was planning to require it for my deviance class this week, but chickened out. although it is an honest, candid warts-n'-all portrayal, in my view it simply makes cocaine sound too attractive. based on my student surveys over the years, i know that coke remains a deviant taste among my undergrad students (in contrast, lifetime marijuana use is roughly 75 percent). would weiland's words have led anyone to try cocaine or heroin for the first time? would a professor's apparent endorsement make a difference? here are a few excerpts from weiland's piece, highlighting the exotic attractions, the rituals, and the subjective experience:

MY FIRST EXPERIENCES WITH COCAINE were just completely...it was, like, sexual. It was unbelievable. I didn't think that there could be anything that good...

The guy cut us out a couple lines each, like, six inches long and about an eighth of an inch wide. I had two of them. And that was all we needed. We were high for five hours. And there was no grinding teeth. There was no big comedown. I think the devil gives you the first time for free...

He tied me off and shot me up. And then he said, "Now you got your wings." I remember just lying back on his mattress ... Complete warmth went all the way through my body. I was consumed. It's like what they talk about in Buddhism, that feeling of reaching enlightenment. Like in Siddhartha ... there's this feeling in Buddhism where they say there's a golden glow that goes from your fingers all the way through every appendage and into the pit of your stomach. And that's what it felt like to me, slamming dope for the first time. Like I'd reached enlightenment...

I was home. All my life, I had never felt right in my own skin. I always felt that wherever I went...I don't know, I always felt very uncomfortable. Like I didn't belong. Like I could never belong. Like every room I walked into was an unwelcome room. After doing dope for the first time, I knew that no matter what happened, from that day forward, I could be okay in every situation. Heroin made me feel safe. It was like the womb. I felt completely sure of myself. It took away all the fears. It did that socially; it distanced me from other people, made me feel less vulnerable...

Once I started shooting, I realized I'd made a career decision...
WHEN I STARTED DOING HEROIN, I felt almost immediately like I had become part of something bigger than myself, that I'd entered into a new social realm...

I never wanted to quit. Never. I saw narcotics as something I needed in order to function. I believed at the time that I was born with a chemical deficiency. Which I was. I was totally correct. But at the time, I believed I was born with this particular chemical deficiency that only opiates could fulfill. My basic thought was: How the hell can all you people want to keep me away from the one particular medicine that could keep me from blowing my head off?

again, weiland does not endorse use of these drugs -- he just tells us honestly about how he experienced their seductions. drug educators face a real paradox in describing such psychoactive effects to non-users. any realistic presentation must note that cocaine and heroin are experienced as pleasurable by users (recognizing, as howard becker, that such definitions are social constructions). yet, such descriptions have at least some potential to encourage use. and, of course, such use can bring harm to users.

of course, cocaine and heroin have long histories as licit as well as illicit drugs. freud himself endorsed parke-davis cocaine, which it alleged could “supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent and ... render the sufferer insensitive to pain.”

i would have used weiland to lecture on stigma and the arc of his career as a singer and as a drug user. yet his descriptions were too rich for the task -- i would have needed a few more first-person accounts describing the banality of the experience ("did coke in the club, got really anxious, couldn't sleep, didn't want to do it anymore") for balance. in any case, the students will get plenty of sociological analysis of drugs in america: craig reinarman and reefer madness on moral panics and a little becker on learning to use marijuana. still, i'd like to find a way to responsibly add some sort of first-person account to cover the individual-level processes described by weiland.

bumped! not that anyone would fly in for it or anything...

i noted a couple weeks ago that shelly schaefer and i were speaking on voting and the civic reintegration of former prisoners on november 29th. alas, we've been bumped for another fine talk by a visiting job candidate. postponement offers a bit of relief for shelly (currently serving a tough four-month sentence as my sociology of deviance teaching assistant), but we're still readying the paper for asa submission by january 18th. despite this bumping, elaine hernandez, an nimh-nrsa predoctoral fellow, will present some of our coauthored work that week.

Wednesday, November 30 12:30 - 2:00 pm in 915 Social Sciences Building
Elaine Hernandez and Christopher Uggen, "Sources of Variation in State Mental Health Parity Laws."

i won't give away the punchline, but mandating mental health coverage appears to be a partisan political issue.

new alec ewald paper on felon voting

from the sentencing project:

alec ewald, a political scientist at union college, has written some excellent law review articles on felon disenfranchisement. he just completed a new sentencing project report on how such laws are administered. in a mail and phone survey he finds much confusion and error in interpreting and administering these ballot restrictions. in a 'crazy-quilt' of tiny pieces: state and local administration of american criminal disenfranchisement laws, he reports that 37 percent of local elections officials interviewed misunderstand state eligibility law. moreover, in at least five states a misdemeanor conviction also results in the loss of voting rights (hmmm. maybe i should stop calling it "felon" disenfranchisement).

run, jimmy run...

the ny times reports that jim deupree, a florida prison inmate, was assigned a number for last weekend's nyc marathon. mr. deupree would run "not through New York's five boroughs with 37,000 other entrants, but in the razor-wire isolation of the prison yard of the Jackson Correctional Institute. He would circle a dirt track, one that measures about two and a quarter laps to the mile, until he completed the marathon in about 60 laps. He said he had trained 50 miles a week and hoped to complete the race in four hours."

although florida prison officials were distrustful, i'm heartened by the story. i especially liked reading that new balance tried to send 80 pairs of running shoes to jackson prison. count me in for a half-dozen pairs if it will help prisoners get what i get out of running. in fact, i'll mail off my size 10 nikes right now if inmates can put them to use. on the basis of countless pre-race conversations but no hard data, i'm convinced that many runners are in recovery from something. running seems to scratch some kind of itch for them that they'd heretofore only reached through self-destruction.

at 14, i only ran when chased (which was not infrequent). still, i remember being completely transfixed by the jericho mile, a made-for-tv movie about a running prisoner. the setting was a dusty folsom prison and the recurring theme song was the stones' sympathy for the devil. the bassline is perfect for running -- gathering steam and confidence at an intense pace that is almost out of control. the jagged guitar solo at song's end somehow conveys the funky-good pain one feels at race's end. the protagonist, a murderer named "rain" murphy, was played by peter strauss, who looked and ran like a gnarly thirtysomething miler. well, at least he looked a lot faster than the skinny-legged boys playing runners in most movies. the critics also praise the jericho mile for its use of inmates in many scenes and for dealing squarely with the racial tensions at folsom, despite this gem of dialogue:

"Without me coaching you, without Captain Midnight filling your hoochy soul with funky inspiration, how are you going to be champion?" ~Stiles to Murphy

looking at the movie's stills, i'm starting to think it had a bigger influence on me than i had realized (studying prisons, running, bad 70s hair) . for some of us, running offers both the joy of wild freedom and the satisfaction of self-control. i can't help but think that at least some inmates might be wired in a similar way. run on, jim deupree.