Conceptions of innate criminality have spread easily into neoliberal political discourse. This is epitomized by the research of John DiIulio and James Fox examining the growing population of in inner city black communities “super-predators” America’s in the article painted these young men as Weekly Standard 1990s. DiIluio’s 1995 who what comes “hardened, remorseless juveniles” would, unless closely regulated, “do rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get This ‘naturally’: murder, high.” language drew on the imagery of the born criminal, and the work of Fox and DiIulio helped facilitate the spread of punitive criminal justice policies for juveniles in the 1990s. The language carried readily into politics as Hillary Clinton, stumping for her husband’s reelection bid in January 1996, told a New Hampshire crowd that the government has to engage in effort against but that the gangs the state has to fight “an organized gangs,” not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called “are no This clarifies how the popularity of the ‘superpredators.’ No conscience, empathy.” theory was largely contingent on a neoliberal crime politics seeking to take a hard line against criminals as incorrigible and individually flawed. This all suggests that support for prisoner rehabilitation from Grover Norquist, the conservative on and publics in red states like Texas should be “Right Crime” initiative, viewed skeptically. These are good signs, since rehabilitative interventions can provide chances for offenders to reform. But it should not be presumed that a reform agenda emphasizing rehabilitation faces no risk of a public backlash, especially in a neoliberal political environment and when state support for rehabilitation is tied to recidivism reductions as Norquist suggests. Given the conceptualization of criminality on which rehabilitative theory rests and the assumptions it makes about incorrigibility and
Conceptions of innate criminality have spread easily into neoliberal political discourse. This is epitomized by the research of John DiIulio and James Fox examining the growing population of “super-predators” in America’s inner city black communities in the 1990s. DiIluio’s 1995 Weekly Standard article painted these young men as “hardened, remorseless juveniles” who would, unless closely regulated, “do what comes ‘naturally’: murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high.” This language drew on the imagery of the born criminal, and the work of Fox and DiIulio helped facilitate the spread of punitive criminal justice policies for juveniles in the 1990s. The language carried readily into politics as Hillary Clinton, stumping for her husband’s reelection bid in January 1996, told a New Hampshire crowd that the government has to engage in “an organized effort against gangs,” but that the gangs the state has to fight “are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators.’ No conscience, no empathy.” This clarifies how the popularity of the theory was largely contingent on a neoliberal crime politics seeking to take a hard line against criminals as incorrigible and individually flawed. This all suggests that support for prisoner rehabilitation from Grover Norquist, the conservative “Right on Crime” initiative, and publics in red states like Texas should be viewed skeptically. These are good signs, since rehabilitative interventions can provide chances for offenders to reform. But it should not be presumed that a reform agenda emphasizing rehabilitation faces no risk of a public backlash, especially in a neoliberal political environment and when state support for rehabilitation is tied to recidivism reductions as Norquist suggests. Given the conceptualization of criminality on which rehabilitative theory rests and the assumptions it makes about incorrigibility and
Grasso_WPSA%202016.docx