What do you think?
Rate this book
Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment
In a series of newly commissioned essays from the leading scholars and advocates in criminal justice, Invisible Punishment explores, for the first time, the far-reaching consequences of our current criminal justice policies. Adopted as part of "get tough on crime" attitudes that prevailed in the 1980s and '90s, a range of strategies, from "three strikes" and "a war on drugs," to mandatory sentencing and prison privatization, have resulted in the mass incarceration of American citizens, and have had enormous effects not just on wrong-doers, but on their families and the communities they come from. This book looks at the consequences of these policies twenty years later.
368 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2002
9 people are currently reading
242 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 21, 2012
This book is much better than other reviewers have pointed out. Each essay pointedly discusses major problems with mass incarceration. A couple of the chapters had phenomenal work on gender. It's a nice compilation.
October 14, 2010
Each chapter in this book is penned by a different author. This leads to a inconsistent voice and writing style as well as quality of work. Some chapters were downright awful.
Another result of individually penned chapters is the facts and statistics included within each chapter were specific to the state or region the author was writing about. Few of these chapters could supply nationwide statistics, averages and facts. Leaving the reader to ponder whether or not the statistics presented were the same on a nationwide basis or if there were special extenuating circumstances that affected the numbers. One would presume statistics are affected by the laws, state government and overall culture and political leaning of such states.
Chapter 5 by Meda Chesney-Lind. Her repetitive use of female pronouns instead of gender neutral was enough to drive me insane because I kept thinking the author was referring to a specific person. She was unable to cite specifics as to why women need to be incarcerated/treated differently than males and went so far as to say that those who would incarcerate females in the same way males are guilty of “Vengeful Equity”. That female prisoners need access to their children and to healthcare etc. I don’t see why that should only be extended to females? Do men not need to see their children or have access to healthcare? The other statement she made that really rubbed me the wrong way was her statement that women drug users use drugs to self medicate after sexual or physical abuse unlike men who take drugs for adventure or challenge. This is a gross misstatement if I’ve ever heard one.
Ch. 7 – “Inmates can only call collect and additional charges for monitoring and recording by prison phone company add up quickly…many families have their phone disconnected within 2 months.” Can I get a source cited on this statement? Define “many” families? 50%? 85%? In fact, upon trying to find sources in the “Notes” section I find this “While there are no publicly available data… the costs are high locally and nationally as several news accounts have noted. Soooo… again can we have some sources? What news accounts have made these statements? Define “high costs”. You can’t use subjective language like that without some hard numbers to back up your claim.
Chapter 12 is a contradictory with the first half of the chapter bemoaning the fact that prison “boosters” fill the community with rosy claims of monies and job coming into the communites only to have those communities find out that the prison is actually a drain on their economy. The second half is spent bemoaning that prison is big business with diverts federal funds out of impoverished minority neighborhoods and into largely white rural neighborhoods. So which scenario is it?
Look, I’m the biggest bleeding heart liberal. But this book just had too many sweeping statements, subjective statements and unsubstantiated statements for me to swallow.
Another result of individually penned chapters is the facts and statistics included within each chapter were specific to the state or region the author was writing about. Few of these chapters could supply nationwide statistics, averages and facts. Leaving the reader to ponder whether or not the statistics presented were the same on a nationwide basis or if there were special extenuating circumstances that affected the numbers. One would presume statistics are affected by the laws, state government and overall culture and political leaning of such states.
Chapter 5 by Meda Chesney-Lind. Her repetitive use of female pronouns instead of gender neutral was enough to drive me insane because I kept thinking the author was referring to a specific person. She was unable to cite specifics as to why women need to be incarcerated/treated differently than males and went so far as to say that those who would incarcerate females in the same way males are guilty of “Vengeful Equity”. That female prisoners need access to their children and to healthcare etc. I don’t see why that should only be extended to females? Do men not need to see their children or have access to healthcare? The other statement she made that really rubbed me the wrong way was her statement that women drug users use drugs to self medicate after sexual or physical abuse unlike men who take drugs for adventure or challenge. This is a gross misstatement if I’ve ever heard one.
Ch. 7 – “Inmates can only call collect and additional charges for monitoring and recording by prison phone company add up quickly…many families have their phone disconnected within 2 months.” Can I get a source cited on this statement? Define “many” families? 50%? 85%? In fact, upon trying to find sources in the “Notes” section I find this “While there are no publicly available data… the costs are high locally and nationally as several news accounts have noted. Soooo… again can we have some sources? What news accounts have made these statements? Define “high costs”. You can’t use subjective language like that without some hard numbers to back up your claim.
Chapter 12 is a contradictory with the first half of the chapter bemoaning the fact that prison “boosters” fill the community with rosy claims of monies and job coming into the communites only to have those communities find out that the prison is actually a drain on their economy. The second half is spent bemoaning that prison is big business with diverts federal funds out of impoverished minority neighborhoods and into largely white rural neighborhoods. So which scenario is it?
Look, I’m the biggest bleeding heart liberal. But this book just had too many sweeping statements, subjective statements and unsubstantiated statements for me to swallow.
September 17, 2024
If someone you know is in the criminal justice system, read this. If you don’t know anyone within the criminal justice system, read this. Do not let these experiences and details fall into the void, or it will only get worse.
July 20, 2007
short essays covering various topics related to mass incarceration policies...the impact on individuals, families and communities of locking so many people up! a good book if you want to get up to speed quickly on a variety of topics related to imprisonment in the U.S.
April 9, 2016
This book was a huge eye opener for me when I read it ten years ago. Yes it's kind of a mixed bag. Some essays are more interesting than others, but I remember being horrified after I read it.
June 5, 2020
The chapters by Jeremy Travis (Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion), Angela Davis (Incarceration and the Imbalance of Power), Donald Braman (Families and Incarceration), Tracy Huling (Building a Prison Economy in Rural America) and Peter Y. Sussman (Media on Prisons: Censorship and Stereotypes) were particularly edifying. If you’re interested in learning more about mass incarceration this is an engaging and easily accessible work.
May 27, 2021
it was hard to get through but it had great content.
May 3, 2022
*3.5 - individually these essays were really great, but together in one book I feel they lacked cohesion and it was difficult because the main focus and voice kept switching
February 1, 2008
Forget everything else, this is what people should really be paying attention to.
December 17, 2015
See last update for review.
February 1, 2013
Is eye-opening too cliché a term to use here? Oh we'll. I don't care because that's what it was.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews