Summary Of Punished By Dr. Victor M. Rios

In his novel Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys, Dr. Victor M. Rios aims to demonstrate the catastrophe of criminalization, the flops of using cruel and humiliating punishments that attempt to “‘correct’ and ‘manage’ marginalized youths” (p. 23), and to display the consequences that these practices will have on the paths that teenagers take. He does this by documenting parts of his experience in observing forty boys of Black and/or Latino who are “heavily affected by criminal justice policies and practice” (p. 8). Then, he clarifies how these flaws impacted the boys in these situations. The aim of this essay is to summarize Dr. Rios’ observations and analyze and critique the primary arguments made in the book.
For his research,

Dr. Rios chose to return to his hometown of Oakland, California, a place in which he argues that its social order embeds criminalization, “that it is a fabric of everyday life” (p. 27). In fact, over the last few decades, Oakland has developed “pervasive systems of policing and surveillance, dynamic youth subcultures, and large working classes and poor populations” (p. 28). Additionally, as a former gang member and juvenile delinquent, he experienced it himself. However, after witnessing his best friend murdered in a fight, Rios decided to make a change and slowly progress out of criminalization. However, street life made him suffer daily.
In an era involving mass incarceration, Dr. Rios defines labeling as “not just a process whereby schools, police, probation officers, and families stigmatize the boys,” but also the “process of by which agencies of social control further stigmatize and mark the boys in response to their original label” (p. 45). As a result, it generates a sequence that increases the boys’ experience with criminalization. For instance, teachers, police, and probation officers execute the “Code of the Street,” which assumes that all the guys are actively engaged in criminal activity. Thus, officers can refuse to provide protection so that the boys are forced to follow the code. Additionally, it allows officers to “justify harassment and arrest, schools to punish and suspend students for defiance, and community members to fear young people” (p. 72) just because of a simple label. The problem with the Code is that it creates a punitive social control that impacts the boys’ lives. Essentially, it prevents many of the boys from committing crimes, but they still get arrested for minor infractions.
Ultimately, more exposure to the Code leads to defiance and resistance. In other words, most of the boys feel more encouraged to commit crimes as a means of showing people “not to fuck with [them] anymore” (p. 107). For example, a young man named Flaco stops by a liquor store with his three friends to grab a snack. As Dr. Rios walks in with them, he notices a sign that says “‘Only two kids allowed in store at one time’” (p. 105). Despite this, the friends entered in as a group. As Flaco enters the candy aisle, he keeps a distance between himself and the products to “show the clerk, who was already staring him down, that he was not attempting to steal” (p. 106). According to Rios, the store clerks he witnessed always feared their customers. This is, in part, due to the label assigned from the Code, which might explain why this clerk disbelieves he can “keep an eye on all of [the kids in his store] at the same time” (p. 106). Thus, it generates a defiance.
Mike felt tired of the treatment he received at school, by police officers, and at the liquor store. Therefore, his anger and demand for respect led to “exposing himself to incarceration. In the end, the boy lost his freedom, becoming supervised by the criminal justice system” (p. 107).
But does resisting the police for dignity make you a man?

Criminal justice institutions in Oakland challenge masculinity as a means of rehabilitation. For instance, from a boy’s perspective, being a man involves standing up to peers who challenge self-confidence. This results in law breaking and violent fights, which can create opportunities for arrests. On the other hand, probation officers believe that being a man involves obtaining an education to support your family. However, by living in a poor neighborhood where punitive social control is ratified, the boys can hardly find employment. Thus, it generates hypermasculinity, which “often influenced the young men to perpetrate defiance, crime, and violence, sanctioning police to brutalize or arrest them” (p. 138). To reiterate, probation officers tell the boys to “get a job, do well in school and stay out of trouble” (p. 139). But the odds of succeeding are low, because “most avenues of legitimate success were out of reach” (p.

139).
For instance, Oakland’s community center programs are designed to serve “‘at-risk youths” (p. 92). However, due a lack of money, they heavily rely on the probation department for funding. As a result, probation officers advise and/or teach programs. Another example involves parenting, as “the young people [Rios] interviewed perceived themselves to be criminalized by their parents. Take one of the boys named Jose, for example.
The examples listed above are due the functions of the current youth control complex, which according to Dr. Rios, is “a ubiquitous system of criminalization molded by the synchronized, systematic punishment meted out by socializing and social control institutions” (p.40). In other words, society treats young people’s everyday behavior as criminal. As a result, the young boys feel isolated from the rest of society. This in turn forms a defiance, which leads to officers challenging masculinity.
By the end of the book, Dr. Rios concludes with the idea that Oakland’s interactions are controlled by social incapacitation, which is “the process by which punitive social control becomes an instrument which prevents marginalized populations from functioning, thriving, and feeling a sense of dignity and humanity in their daily interactions with institutional forces” (p. 160). Additionally, he argues that criminalization is camouflaged as a “protective mechanism” that needs to be exposed. Despite these harsh circumstances, Rios believes hope exists, that the current youth control complex can be revolutionized.
He proposes three alternate forms of social control.

The first one involves building an improved youth control complex. After all, if it were not for the resources he encountered as a youth, Rios would not obtain a spectacular education. His experience in Oakland taught him that “if we provide the right resources to catapult themselves out of marginalization, young people will deliver” (p. 162). If the youth control complex gets a redesign, it needs to give people an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. The second approach deals with managing dignity and freedom “for all young people” (p. 163). To do this, lawmakers must find a way to work with populations affected by social control, even if it means allowing social movements to influence policies. The final approach involves using the “One Youngster at a Time” approach (p. 164). According to Rios, “the key is to provide all marginalized youths with good props, good lighting, and a supportive audience. In this way, acts of resistance, resilience, and reform, which go hand in hand, can become the basis for helping young people transform their lives” (p. 166). If Oakland citizens can discover ways to “respect and embrace the work that young people do for dignity and freedom” (p. 164), not only would they change how the criminal justice system functions, but also how lives are

transformed.
On a personal note, I highly enjoyed reading and comprehending Dr. Rios’ experience in returning to Oakland, especially since he used to be a gang member and a juvenile delinquent there. He combines his experience as a youth with the experience of his observations to elucidate his points and draw conclusions. Without any doubts, I agree with all his points. However, I wish that he would clarify.