Changing the Criminalization of Poverty - Coursework Example

Running Head: CHANGING THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY Changing the Criminalization of Poverty Changing the Criminalization of Poverty Introduction A core social problem within the United States is not only that there is poverty, but because of social policy, being poor has become an almost criminal state without much in the way of social support so that the state of poverty can be overcome. There is a belief that if someone is poor it is because they have made poor choices, that they do not want to work, and that they have not enough ambition to live in the mainstream. The poor are characterized as thieves, drug users, and undeserving. Even in a poor economy, there is a belief that anyone who wants a job could go get one. The underground economy is seen as only a means of criminality and any efforts outside of the mainstream is thought to be an effort to defraud the government for welfare. There are a great number of misunderstandings of both financial success and poverty. There is the belief that success is found through individual effort. This is not true. There is also the belief that if they tried harder, those who are poor could do better. This is also not true. To understand the nature of poverty and how the truth of success includes a much more collaborative experience, one must take a look at the way in which the inequalities in the nation have set people up to either succeed or fail based on their circumstances. There is no doubt that the nature of life for those who live in poverty could be raised from that level into success, but in order to do that a number of different factors need to change. Neighborhood regeneration, public transportation, equal school opportunities, and better infrastructure on the whole would all contribute to better opportunities for those who are poor. This is not the problem, however. The problem is that there is a belief that poverty is a state of criminality and does not deserve resources because of its nature. Addressing this issue will begin meaningful change. Public Policy In order to address public policy through changing social policy about the poor, it is important to follow a path towards public policy. Stone (2002) writes “A theory of policy politics must start with a model of political society, that is, a model of the simplest version of society that retains the essential elements of politics.” (p. 13). Stone (2002) goes on to discuss public policy in relationship to a market as individuals are all competing for their position in the market and for the ability to use available, but limited resources. Trying to gain what they can at the lowest possible cost means that they can change those raw materials into something that can be sold at a higher price. This stimulates resourcefulness and innovation. The polis, which is Greek for the city-state, is similar to this where the resources of the state create competition between those who would use those resources to make gains within the nation. Public policy emerges as a resource, restraint, or condition of the community. In order to create public policy, the community and its membership must be taken into consideration. One of the problems in the recent campaign is that Mitt Romney cited that 47% of the population did not pay taxes; therefore he was not interest in their vote or their needs. This means that through this type of thought process, 47% of the population could be dismissed for being irrelevant and this is the core of the problem (Rainey, 2012). In dismissing those who have little to no resources, valuable human resources are lost and the whole of society suffers. It is more common, however, to be dismissive in relationship to the poor, believing that their membership in society is nothing more than a burden. Rather than dismissing people of little means, it would be more beneficial to see them as potential resources within the economy and within the community. Various levels of accomplishments might be made if people in lower classes were taken more seriously for what they might have to offer rather than just seeing them as a drain on resources. Stone (2002) defines a difference between a political community and a cultural community. The roles within a community create membership and it is through that membership that influence is possible. Political community means that there is a group of people who all live under the same rules. In a cultural community people define who they are through how they identify with the cultural group. In a political community, rule and laws are designed for those who are a part of the social groups, those who have the ability to live within the rules and laws. Those who are unable to live with the rules of the community are considered anti-social and are outside of the accepted community. Equity Equity is a difficult concept. It seems simple to create a situation in which everyone is equal, but the truth is that there needs to be some people who are in power and some people who are willing to follow those in power. In addition, there will always be those who have more money and live in comparison to those who have less. The three general classes of people are the elite or wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. Although American democracy has fought to put the voice of the people at the forefront of their political community, it is really the elite and the wealthy that make the decisions on how people in the nation will live. They realistically are the sole advocates for the poor as the middle class is usually concerned with their survival to the point that other groups are not a part of their discussion. It is not that charity does not exist, but that the power for real change steals from the power that the middle class needs to maintain the access that they need to real and valued resources in the nation. Equity, however, is the first path to a richer nation. It is important, for a moment, to table the discussion on equity and look towards the basic concepts of how success has been created. There was a time in American history that a man need only want a piece of land and have the courage to work it in order to become a landowner. Bruckner (2006) writes that landownership in Europe was a rare and elitist thing when the Americas were first being settled. Throughout the early history of early America and the United States, periods of free land, low cost land, and the right to lay claim as long as the land was worked and developed gave the poor and the lower classes the opportunity to become landowners. This benefit was a leg up that was given or practically given away. People worked hard, but they were benefited by what can be seen as social programs that helped them to do better. In modern society, those who typically do well do so because they have been given an education. This was not given to them without work, but they were given the funds for tuition, they had the benefit of school loans, or grants and scholarship programs provide the money for which they get this upper level education. Coming from a background where support and a good foundational education lead them to this place of a fine university education was something that was provided for them from someone, most often the state. The same school system that exists in the suburbs, however, does not exist in urban areas. Creating equity in the schooling system would be a way to give opportunities to children so that they can become productive adults. Making education a requirement all the way through to at least the 12th grade and making that a punishable offense would be a start towards equity in education. There is nothing wrong with making it clear what is expected from a citizen. Making the system equitable would mean creating an education system where someone from a lower class neighborhood has the same opportunities for an education that someone from an upper class neighborhood. This would not be qualified with children getting the same, with additions in an upper class neighborhood, but educations that are rich and complex with music and art programs should be available to all children. Rich educations where teachers are paid the same, there are the same programs available to all, and where children of all classes are given the same expectations would help them to rise to the level of opportunity that is equal. Stone (2002) writes “Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment; and the same distribution may be seen as equal or unequal, depending on one’s point of view.” (p. 40). This is true. The inequity would come where rich parents would be paying for the education of poor children as the district method of financing an education would no longer exist. The decision would be made that all children in every corner of the United States would be entitled to the same advantages and required to participate at some level until they finished their 12th year of school. Framing the subject of equity on the concept of schooling as an example would show the community how some students are being disadvantaged and others are coming out of the educational system with higher levels of advantages than most. However, this has been known for some time and a list of statistics proving this would not lead to the elimination of inequity where opportunity is concerned. Knowing there is a problem does not mean that there is an understanding of the implications of that situation. Another problem that creates an unequal access to opportunity is that the social programs that exist in the United States penalize the recipient for beginning to do better. Food assistance, cash assistance, WIC programs, and housing assistance are only available as the individual or family meets the barest requirements. When a family begins to earn money, their food assistance is lowered or taken away. This leads to defrauding the system because earning enough to feed oneself becomes a deficit rather than a leg up towards earning a place in society as a contributing member. There is no incentive to do a bit better because if it is reported to the state, the aid that has been the means of survival are then either reduced or taken away. This leads to increased hardships because if one is struggling in a low paying job and has had the assistance taken away before any gains can be made, the poor have been penalized for trying harder. Rather than penalize a family that is trying to work their way out of poverty, it would work better if a family qualified for assistance and then received it for a set period of time so that they could be given a hand up rather than a hand out. Here is where the false impression is steep in the greater community. The minute that would be said, the remark that would likely be heard would be that ‘those’ people only want a hand out, they do not want help up. The reason this appears true is that more often than not people are disrespected and told what they have to do rather than helped to get to a place that would give them satisfaction. The example that proves the theory can be seen in the land giveaways at the dawn of the creation of the United States. People who were poor fought to be able to stake a claim and work their land so that they could make something of their lives. Most people want to have purpose, not just merely survive. The woman who has no opportunity and has three kids and is on state aid may have the dream of opening a flower shop. There is no hope of this because she has no resources with which to begin to achieve this dream. People see her and believe that all she wants is to live on the state. This is because she has few options that will help her achieve her dream, and even fewer resources with which to find support for that dream. Equity comes when there are options through which attaining dreams becomes a real possibility through programs that not give help, but provide substantive support for achieving those dreams. The truth is that the way in which the poor are perceived is the reason that the response by the government is so poor. Emergency help is not enough. Penalizing people for doing better is not reasonable. When a person begins to do better, they are still well behind the curve. Creating equity of opportunity and providing support rather than penalties or disgrace for needing a leg up is the way in which to begin to eliminate poverty and begin to find true equal opportunity. At the present time, equal opportunity for success is a myth. Symbols New symbols need to become relevant to the discussion. Symbols are how we frame understanding about the culture. Currently, the poor are often accompanied with pictures of a lack of cleanliness, drug addiction, or neglect of children. Although it is difficult to create statistics that are truly meaningful on these topics, poor families can be seen that are structures traditionally, that are not exhibiting criminal behavior, are not doing drugs, and are not symbolized by children running around unclean and without family attention. Parents who are working to maintain a working poor lifestyle often have little time to spend with their children, but unlike the elite or middle class, good childcare is not available to compensate. Stone (2002) writes “Symbols which shape our perceptions and suspend skepticism are what make symbols political devices” (p. 72). Symbols of the poor are so ripe with the idea of them being pathetic that the only recourse is to define them as criminal and unworthy of opportunity. New symbols need to be created in order to begin seeing poverty as something other than the result or the state of criminality. Real criminals have money. Those without opportunity are those who are adrift and have yet to find the support to find a way out of their situation. It may be that they were born into poverty and do not know what it would mean to pull into the middle class. Either way, it is the symbols of poverty that frame the response to it and deny the idea of creating ways out rather than creating bandages that are taken away as the individual begins to build a ladder in order to climb out of the situation. Power One would think that it would be facts that would change the social awareness of poverty. This is not true. Facts about poverty have been in the social realm since television and the news media first began discussing the problem. It is giving the impoverished a facet of power that will provide them with the voice with which to change how the nation views their circumstances. One of the most important problems that the poor have had in most cultures and in most nations is that they have no voice. It is the lack of power that creates the perpetuation of the problems that the poor have because they are not heard, they are represented by people who are not currently poor, and their needs are not adequately addressed as a result. Conclusion To create a plan to change the perception of poverty in order to move forward and start eliminating the state of poverty all together begins by changing the social attitude about success being a solitary activity with poverty being a lack of ambition. The criminalization of poverty means that social policy is never designed to affect change, but only created in order to create a hand out. Giving a hand up does not mean bandaging the symptoms. Creating relief for the poor means changing their social status from criminal to an understanding of what it means to be without advantages. In order to create real help through opportunity that does not end up penalizing them before they climb out of their circumstances, they must be given a human face that reveals that they are just as willing to live well as anyone else. It will require creating solid symbols for this movement that is then supported by power, because without having powerful people support this movement, it will fall away and not be addressed. Without the power to make change, there is no momentum for social change. Martin Luther King Jr. created change through having powerful message and followers who were willing to hear his wisdom. He was the symbol of change. This message would need someone or some action that was just as powerful. Resources Brückner, M. (2006). The geographic revolution in early America: Maps, literacy, and national identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Rainey, J. (25 September 2012). Mitt Romney’s 47% comment alienated undecided voters: poll. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt- romneys-47-percent-poll-20120925,0,5822326.story Accessed on 10 December 2012. Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton. Read More