Incarcerated People in the Political Arena

Introduction By Love

What has been coined and often referred to as the exception clause to the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution has had lasting and devastating effects on people of color and their communities. The relevant part instructs that slavery will be deemed illegal and unconstitutional with the exception of a punishment for a crime. In keeping with the spirit of the exception clause, most states have allowed or mandated many forms of disenfranchisement for people convicted of a crime. For example, a conviction can lead to losing your constitutional right to vote, access to adequate housing, meaningful employment, or even reuniting with your family. These are the ramifications of being branded a convicted felon. Conversely, many political organizations, groups, and individuals are constantly challenging the status quo on how the exception clause keeps chattel slavery alive by disenfranchising convicted felons more often than not, mostly who are people of color.

Sandy: Let me please add that I feel that people of color have been more than disenfranchised in systemic and strategic ways that will take hundreds of years to “correct”. I say “correct” because as a society we must be forced to act, and less talk (room for denial and painful mistakes) and opinions be shared. But rather Political Power must be shaken, until this nation is truly just, for all.

Love: This game of political football has been going on since the end of the Civil War. Throughout this ongoing fight to end slavery, enslaved individuals have always participated in the many abolition movements to bring about their liberation. Some movements, of course, were more successful than others. However, as the failed attempt at reconstruction turned into a new form of slavery, and incarceration, the new face of resistance in politics came from those locked in prisons. Nat Turner, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, George Jackson, Nelson Mandela, Members of MOVE, and Angela Davis, to name a few, are a short list of people who, through and despite their incarceration, remained relevant political forces. That has changed.

Sandy: Peace and blessing to those who are still here and to those who are no longer here that have fought for us all, in the name of true freedom.

Incarcerated People in the Political Arena

Love: I have a few questions for you…….

Seems like there is no longer a political need or want for incarcerated people to enter the political arena. Why? What happened?

Sandy: I have some ideas about that which really upset me. First, what are your thoughts as to why?

Love: To fully understand and answer why incarcerated people have lost interest in the political process requires some historical context. If we take the 60s and 70s as the height of political engagement for people in prisons, then naturally we must ask why. Taking one of my heroes as an example, Angela Davis, most of her fame and notoriety came after her arrest and throughout her incarceration. Though Davis was related to her life as an incarcerated person was tied to a political group(s). As groups like the Black Panther Party amongst others engaged with Davis (and others) while incarcerated allowing her to feel the power of participating in the democratic process. In much the same way, to have writers like James Baldwin lend their pen to your politics helps to keep you engaged.

My point is that what worked almost fifty years ago with the generation of what is now viewed as political prisoners is no longer important anymore. In other words, there aren’t enough radical groups with relevant political power to shed light on the issues attached to life in prison. I think it’s safe to say that being or looking to be radical in thought, ideology, or practice is scary to not only allies of incarcerated individuals, but incarcerated people as well. In part, the rise of the use of supermax prisons and long-term segregation has made prison political activism a very dangerous way to do time. This is not new. We have seen this in Attica. We have seen this in Rikers Island. We have seen this in Angola.

However, seeing the result of political activism in prison may also be why it ultimately does not exist in prison anymore. Ultimately, what has caused the most damage to political activism in prisons was the loss of community support during the age of mass incarceration. The political climate, even in black and brown communities, began to turn on incarcerated people as the message of Get Tough on Crime to drown out any and all resistance to it. As group after group and ally after ally abandoned the incarcerated, incarcerated individuals left political activism and turned to prison gangs and meaningless prison politics while decades passed them by.

Sandy: Very good points. Angela Davis is definitely one of my favorite activists. I kind of wish the Black Panther movement would return today. To me, that’s a real grassroots movement that uplifts the community from what I have heard. But yes, going back to your question why. I feel as though there is power and politics pushing against any change for people of color. There is self-interest in making systems remain the same to keep those in power in that position. That is why I like some political radicals, like Bernie Sanders. I feel like having someone like Bernie in a place of power can help move the agenda a lot since there seems to be a negotiation factor to politics. Elected officials may not have community organizing skills and at times lack a connection to communities of color. Sometimes even if they are a person of color. This weighs heavy on me when I think about it. We can easily say we need more elected officials that are people of color. But I think that’s not the entire solution, and rather only a portion of it. I think we need people who are directly impacted by laws to be the drivers of change, people in power, and part of politics. Not just “voices”. I feel like we get caught up in society when we start to feel empowered and part of the process to believe that we need to speak up, but I feel like “talking” is old at this point and we need more strategy and more action. Because we sometimes suffer from internal oppression. Systemic oppression is one thing, but self-efficacy and internal oppression are the why. I feel like if people do not have the information, then the suffering is not their fault, but once the information is shared, the light is shone, and self-efficacy changes, then things begin to change. The Department of Correction doesn’t allow certain books (information), classes (information), and certain people to visit or teach inside prisons (information). Some of the books I have used in my graduate studies should be inside prisons in my opinion, but it does not ever make it to the people who need the information most and it is very intentional.

How do we wake up incarcerated people to how important the political realm is?

Sandy: We start small, and we end big. I first heard this saying from a good childhood friend when she learned how to run marathons. She started small, and that’s what we need to do. We need to educate people by meeting them where they are, which means we need to understand who the person is and what they want to learn. One important thing is to understand if there are any learning disabilities or anything that would come in the way of someone being able to get all the information that they need to get to the next step. For example, I have ADHD. I like to learn fast, and some people cannot read, so they need someone to help them read the information to them, a big difference.

Bryan: First and extremely importantly, I must point out the use of the proverbial “We” in your suggestion that, “We need to start small” and that, “We need to meet people where they are at.” To your former point, there are no small fights or victories for incarcerated folks. Every fight from an extra five minutes to finish your meal to … are monumental battles with wins that are often celebrated and losses that have irreparable and collateral consequences. In context, this is key in terms of the language we use in determining how someone views and labels the battles incarcerated folks are engaged in daily. That said, I disagree with any notion of starting small with hopes of finishing big. Typically, this type of strategic thinking tends to lead to reformist-based ideologies which in turn, keeps the system of mass Incarceration thriving. To the larger point, however, this speaks to why incarcerated folks shy away from participating in political activism. It is not lost on us that our concerns, issues, and exceptions to the politics of mass incarceration are viewed, as you put it, as small fights that set up larger ones.

Secondly, there is some truth to the need to meet people where they are at. However, it is far too easy to find ways to devalue incarcerated folks. What I would say is, my nearly two decades of experience living in prison have taught me that within these walls are men and women, despite their level of education, who are experts in systematic oppression, the effects of racism, and mass incarceration. It has also taught me, however, that those in positions of power and/or influence will never see us as such. To your point, though, affording those without an audience to have a place where their voice matters has the power to wake a generation of freedom fighters to political activism.

How do we wake up incarcerated people to know how politics leads to changing the reality of their situation?

Sandy: I think that goes back to educating folks about the political realm and other things. I think we wake people up by understanding their self-interests. For example, I was developing a campaign for smart justice at the ACLU in Connecticut. I talked to a group of folks about what issues in the criminal justice system, or better yet, the United States legal system, was important to them. I picked up a marker and a big white piece of paper about three feet long and two feet wide, and I started writing. It’s essential to understand where people are coming from. There are different triggers because people have been treated unjustly throughout the entire system, from police departments to the department of corrections and the court system. We need to understand what bothers that person and talk to them about what they see. That can be different. That will wake them up. Hopefully, it will also allow them the space to create a plan in their mind, with the information necessary to know the power that we have as individuals, whether incarcerated or not incarcerated.

Bryan: You make a very valid point about how educating incarcerated folks about the politics of their situation has the possibility of awakening some to the need for their participation in the political process to affect any meaningful change. The question becomes, though, how are you defining education?

Considering the history of political prowess that once lived inside prisons, why don’t people impacted by the criminal justice system see themselves as having political power?

Sandy: I think this is an important question, a very important question. I believe people impacted by the criminal justice system don’t see themselves as having political power. They have been dealing with internal oppression for a long time. It doesn’t start when you’re an adult. It starts in childhood. For example, people of color have been treated differently, and this message begins as early as kindergarten. I remember telling a good friend of mine about the difference between being Hispanic and light skin and being dark skin and possibly black. I remember telling him that I would like him to put himself in the shoes of a little black boy in kindergarten and how kids are so innocent and want to make friends. So he sat next to someone he related to for whatever reason. I told him that the teacher might treat him differently and that he may get in trouble more often. As we know, this happens. I told him that a couple of years later, it may be assumed that he comes from one parent’s home or that nobody can help him with his homework. Then, a few years later, he may be attracted to a woman with white skin and curly hair, but she mistreats him. He has also experienced many microaggressions he didn’t understand as a child in elementary school. I asked my friend to place himself as that black boy in that classroom. I asked them to wonder what it was like to be treated differently, to be told certain things by that professor or that teacher, to be treated differently by their peers.

The actress Viola Davis has talked about this in her experience growing up in Rhode Island. I wish everybody could read that book and understand what it’s like to be dark skinned in the United States of America. I’m not saying that I understand but to put yourself in somebody else’s shoes. And each of those experiences as a child leading up to adulthood is very important. Having empathy is very important. I also believe that to see ourselves as change agents, we must see ourselves as powerful. We have to look in the mirror and know, not think but know that we mean something more than just anything. Political power is very tricky because if you don’t grow up with it, and it is not discussed, then it may just pass by, especially if you are poor. Poor communities do not talk about politics, how voting affects our everyday life, or how local laws are different from state or federal laws. We need to be educated about this. So, it is a considerable loss.

Bryan: You’re correct, the journey to becoming ‘other’ starts early and stretches throughout generations. For Black folks in this country, that process began over 400 hundred years ago with the institution of chattel slavery. The sad reality is that the institution of chattel slavery has never ended. It has morphed into the institution of mass incarceration. Largely, these institutions — slavery and mass incarceration — were designed to stagnant the political mobility of people of color; specifically, Black people. This disenfranchisement has been a constant and steady drip in the consciousness of Black communities since they entered this country in 1619. We have seen during Reconstruction the enactment of Jim Crow laws, the fight against segregation, and more recently, the current police occupation in Black communities. These selected chapters in the book of white supremacy share the goal of silencing people of color by keeping them out of the political process. In this way, incarcerated folks have lost the ability and drive to see the power or reason to return to a system that routinely betrays them.

What stops incarcerated individuals and FIPs from forming political groups, lobbies, and agendas to influence the policies, bills, and laws that keep so many impacted by a single conviction for the remainder of their lives?

Sandy: Well, that’s a difficult question because everyone is different. I think people have to know what they have the power to do. They can’t go anywhere without knowing what ability they have to do or how to do it. It’s almost like having an address but not having any directions. It is essential to have those directions. Everybody needs a mentor and a guide, just like you need directions to know where you’re going in life. It may be helpful for you to have goals.

At the same time, I think formerly incarcerated people are mostly people that struggle with different things. Many with addiction and mental health, some without addiction, may have experienced significant life events. You may have heard of the ACES scores assessment. The ACES scores ask questions about childhood adversity. Those questions are relevant to addressing how people are impacted by trauma. I think if you are affected by trauma, it is harder for you to focus on accomplishing future goals. Not all the time, but I think it makes it more difficult. That’s just my opinion. I believe that incarcerated individuals and formerly incarcerated people don’t know. For example, due to my felony conviction in 2002, I had to work in the service industry for over ten years and was denied employment and housing many times. I can’t even count, but I know it’s over 100, maybe even over 500.

I can tell you that when a professor talked to me in my last semester at UConn while I was taking a social welfare class or something like that. She told me to apply for a master’s program, which I had never had on my agenda. While in my first semester, I met an individual who brought me to an event called Beyond Bars at Columbia School of Social Work in New York City. It was a very overwhelming but inspiring event. At that event, I realized there was much more to policy, bills, and laws. There were more than two groups, and there was this thing called activism, which I had heard about but didn’t really understand it. I was able to understand what community organizing is and how relevant it is to policy and policymakers. I also learned that strategy is of utmost importance because sometimes it’s about something other than what we see now. And that’s something to speak towards too. When incarcerated individuals are put into a space like that, especially with other incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals, we can create connections, bonds, and networks that cannot be replaced. It’s an unspoken connection that I like to address through the peer-to-peer model. That’s often discussed in rehabilitation for individuals with substance use disorder. I find that formerly incarcerated people I have met throughout the years have done so many things, like open their own lobbying firms, address and develop their own campaigns, address faulty bills and laws, and have even been part of passing and creating new laws. I feel we can pass this information on with the knowledge we have. Information is key.

Bryan: Admittedly, this is not an easy question to answer because it’s a multifaceted problem. However, to put it bluntly, the reason incarcerated and FIP have not formed lobbying groups and organizations in Connecticut is that we have allowed people who have not been impacted by the criminal justice system to spearhead our agenda. These career politicians have made a career by locking up as many people of color as they can for as long as they can and now we are turning to answers. Why? How? This is a mentality that prevents individuals from working together. As the President of GBP, I try to root our political activism in abolitionist principles and practices. I accept that this will have some consequences for us. But, I also expect this to add some tremendous value to some of the rooms I hope to place it in. This conversation is a perfect example of that. As we converse on the value of lobbying for individuals affected by mass incarceration, there is a group of allies that would advise us to try to integrate the system and affect change from within through a stream of reforms. Very similar to your ideas on small fights that lead to larger ones. However, as someone centered in abolitionist teachings, I would say that no change, meaningful change, will come through accepting small streams of reforms that are led by the racist ideology that accepts that there is a humane and constitutional way to warehouse human beings in cages. In a nutshell, these are the conflicting frames of thought when individuals begin to form collectives with the intention of advocating for incarcerated people and FIP. Unfortunately, in this conflict of political ideologies, a great divide has grown between the two sides. Consequently, a true collective cannot be formed without settling this conflict.

Why don’t representatives of the districts that contain prisons visit incarcerated individuals?

Sandy: I can’t answer that for each elected official, but I can say that it goes back to self-interest. Why would they? That’s the real question. What do they get out of visiting prisons in their district? When we think about elected officials, my father always used to say they only care about votes. They will lie to get votes. I’m not saying that elected officials lie, but my dad did say that. It struck a nerve with me because I thought to myself, these are the people who are representing our communities. We want them to be as honest individuals as possible. But if we were to open up our voting laws in Connecticut, maybe those representatives would visit the prisons because now people would be viewed as votes. Not just people, but a person who can vote. That’s really important. That’s where the power leads in your vote. If we got the information to incarcerated individuals and they understood, that’s why representatives don’t visit the district. And that’s why we need to represent ourselves by working on laws that get us that right to vote again, there is power in that. There is so much more to be said about that. Tackling the objectives and things people say about voting is essential to do one by one.

Bryan: Plainly, without a vote, there’s no need to see, hear, consider, or care about us.

How do we start a campaign to introduce a bill drafted by incarcerated individuals?

Sandy: We don’t need to start a campaign to draft a bill, but incarcerated individuals can absolutely be part of drafting a bill. With any bill drafted, there are many reasons that the bill comes about. The first step is networking with individuals who work on policy, talking to all the leaders, and mapping out all the community partners that work on a single issue. For example, raising the age is something that I’m very much interested in. We need to raise the age from 18 to 25. Car insurance companies are innovative because they have used research and changed their age policies. I feel that the United States legal system has yet to do it because they have self-interest. The Department of Corrections employs many people across the country; parole officers, probation officers, police officers, and court officials.

Every single person has the right to have a full-time job, maintain their family, and not live in poverty. That includes every single incarcerated person and every single formerly incarcerated person. The way that we need to draft bills is by talking and including people intentionally. I think there is a lot to say that people inside prison are vulnerable.

Especially if people want to help and give back to the community, we’re willing to say and do anything to help. We want to help with everything that we sometimes have, even if it means that we won’t get phone calls or we will get a ticket because we are trying to do the right thing for the future.

One of the most critical things in policy work and community organizing work is relationships. Building relationships with every single partner on raising the age bill would be the goal. If I wanted other folks to be part of drafting that bill, I would start making a list called mapping. Every person in Connecticut who has worked on raising the age in the past is and possibly in the future. I would start by mapping out their name and contact information and reaching out to them individually. It would be helpful to have a team do this, of course, but you want to ensure that everybody speaks the same language and is on the same page as much as possible. The expectation is that everybody will not be on the same page. Especially not at the same time. When a bill is drafted, elected officials want to do the right thing and include the voices, thoughts, and ideas of people impacted by that legislation, that law, or that bill.

They don’t know how to go about it. We can talk about this more, but there are some great tools in community organizing books that relate to strategy and tactics. When you combine relationships with strategy, you can change many things. Let me change my words and say you will change many things because I have seen and been part of it. I know it’s true.

We shared definitions for each term that was described as “Policy work” by Sandy Lomonico and this is what Love said after he read them all.

Love: I would add, though, is all of these terms, definitions, and titles seem to be affixed to people far from the communities they are working for. Don’t get me wrong, I know this is far from true, but it appears that way. Thinking about it, I believe the divisive nature of politics has those types of collateral consequences for (and to) the underserved. In this way, those definitions only increased my frustration with this way entire system. I sense there is quite a bit of disconnect between how I see politics and you do. However, that disconnect, I believe, is the makings of a great conversation. I hope.

Bryan “Love” Jordan is the co-founder of Guided By Purpose Reentry Initiative, a collective of currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. Love’s organization works to reduce recidivism by increasing access to educational and rehabilitative programs for people who are incarcerated. Love’s has been published in the Yale Daily News, and featured in The Hartford Courant, and CT Mirror. Love is passionate about rehabilitation through higher education. He attended the Yale Prison Education Initiative (YPEI), Second Chance Education Alliance (SCEA), Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), and is currently a student at the University of New Haven (UNH) working on his bachelor’s degree while having served over 17 years. Love enjoys learning about various intersectionalities and complex systemic issues related to racial bias in police policies, sentencing practices, and overall mass incarceration. Love is a writer who uses his expertise to highlight cruelties and inequalities in the United States legal system.