This article introduces the concept of carceral communication to focus attention on the role of communication in mass incarceration’s racialized, criminal justice process. To argue that a communication perspective helps explain how individuals, neighborhoods, and prisons are linked together, the article uses publicly available indictments that charged three New York City youth gangs with violent crimes. It identifies three facets of carceral communication to demonstrate how and why mass incarceration is a communicative phenomenon. First, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become the most sought-after type of criminal evidence because of its visibility and permanence. Second, law enforcement uses the interpersonal communication and neighborhood networks of incarcerated Black men for crime control and surveillance purposes. Third, carceral communication operates as a communication feedback process, in which marginalized, young, Black men under surveillance know they are being watched and respond to that surveillance with resistance that is also subject to criminalization.
AlexanderM (2012) The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.
2.
AndersonE (1999) Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton.
3.
AustinJ (2020) Information access within carceral institutions. Feminist Media Studies20(8): 1293–1297.
4.
BayerJEllisonNSchoenebeckS, et al. (2016) Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society19(7): 956–977.
5.
BeckettKMurakawaN (2012) Mapping the shadow carceral state: toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theoretical Criminology16(2): 221–244.
6.
BenjaminR (ed.) (2019) Captivating Technology: Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7.
boydd (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BrayneS (2014) Surveillance and system avoidance: criminal justice contact and institutional attachment. American Sociological Review79(3): 367–391.
9.
BrayneS (2017) Big data surveillance: the case of policing. American Sociological Review82(5): 977–1008.
10.
BrunsonRKMillerJ (2006) Young black men and urban policing in the United States. British Journal of Criminology46(4): 613–640.
11.
CarlsonS (2015) When is a tweet not an admissible tweet? Closing the authentication gap in the federal rules of evidence. University of Pennsylvania Law Review164(4): 1033–1065.
ChildJTHaridakisPMPetronioS (2012) Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy management, and content deletion practices: the variability of online privacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computers in Human Behavior28: 1859–1872.
15.
ConquergoodD (2013) Cultural Struggles: Performance, Ethnography, Praxis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
16.
DesmondMValdezN (2013) Unpolicing the urban poor: consequences of third-party policing for inner-city women. American Sociological Review78(1): 117–141.
17.
District Attorney New York County (2014) District attorney Vance and police commissioner Bratton announce largest indicted gang case in NYC history [Press release].
FlyverbomMLeonardiPMStohlC, et al. (2016) The management of visibilities in the digital age. International Journal of Communication10(1): 98–109.
21.
FoucaultM (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
22.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
GatesKMagnetS (2007) Communication research and the study of surveillance. The Communication Review10(4): 277–293.
24.
GoffmanA (2014) On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
GoodisonSDavisRJacksonB (2015) Digital evidence and the U.S. Criminal Justice System. Report, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
26.
GottschalkM (2015) Razing the carceral state. Social Justice42(2): 31–51.
27.
GurusamiS (2019) The carceral web we weave: carceral citizens’ experiences of digital punishment and solidarity. Punishment & Society21(4): 435–453.
28.
HäkkiläJChatfieldC (2005) ‘It’s like if you opened someone else’s letter’: user perceived privacy and social practices with SMS communication. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices & services, Salzburgm, 4–7 September.
29.
HardingDJ (2009) Violence, older peers, and the socialization of adolescent boys in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review74(3): 445–464.
30.
HargittaiEMarwickA (2016) “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication10: 3737–3757.
31.
HargraveTJVan de VenAH (2017) Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies38(3–4): 319–339.
32.
HermidaAHernández-SantaolallaV (2018) Twitter and video activism as tools for counter-surveillance: the case of social protests in Spain. Information, Communication & Society21(3): 416–433.
JeffersonBJ (2017) Digitize and punish: computerized crime mapping and racialized carceral power in Chicago. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space35(5): 775–796.
35.
JohEE (2018) Automated policing. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law15(2): 559–563.
36.
KeenanVMDiedrichDMartinB (2013) Developing policy on using social media for intelligence and investigations. The Police Chief80(6): 28–30.
37.
LaneJ (2019) The Digital Street. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
LaneJRamirezFPearceK (2018) Guilty by visible association: socially mediated visibility in gang prosecutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(6): 354–369.
39.
LauerJ (2012) Surveillance history and the history of new media: an evidential paradigm. New Media & Society14(4): 566–582.
40.
LeonardiP (2014) Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: toward a theory of communication visibility. Information Systems Research25(4): 796–816.
41.
Levinson-WaldmanR (2019) Private eyes, they’re watching you: law enforcement’s monitoring of social media. Oklahoma Law Review71(4): 997–1012.
LyonD (2003) Surveillance as social sorting: computer codes and mobile bodies. In: LyonD. (ed) Surveillance as Social Sorting. London: Routledge, pp. 13–30.
44.
MannettaJA (1998) The proper approach to prison mail regulations: standards of review. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement24(1): 209–248.
45.
MarwickAFontaineCboydd (2017) “Nobody sees it, nobody gets mad”: social media, privacy, and personal responsibility among low-SES youth. Social Media + Society3(2): 710455.
46.
MarxGT (2003) A tack in the shoe: neutralizing and resisting the new surveillance. Journal of Social Issues59(2): 369–390.
47.
MillerRJStuartF (2017) Carceral citizenship: race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology21(4): 532–548.
48.
NatapoffA (2009) Snitching Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice. New York: New York University Press.
49.
O’SullivanPBCarrCT (2018) Masspersonal communication: a model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media and Society20(3): 1161–1180.
50.
PattonDUBruntonD-WDixonA, et al. (2017) Stop and frisk online: theorizing everyday racism in digital policing in the use of social media for identification of criminal conduct and associations. Social Media + Society3(3): 1–10.
51.
PCARE (2007) Fighting the prison–industrial complex: a call to communication and cultural studies scholars to change the world. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies4(4): 402–420.
52.
PfaffJF (2017) Locked in: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration—And How to Achieve Real Reform. New York: Basic Books.
53.
QuickDChooK-KR (2017) Pervasive social networking forensics: intelligence and evidence from mobile device extracts. Journal of Network and Computer Applications86: 24–33.
54.
RamirezFLaneJ (2019) Communication privacy management and digital evidence in an intimate partner violence case. International Journal of Communication13: 5140–5157.
55.
RamirezFDenaultVCarpenterS, et al. (2021) “But her age was not given on her Facebook profile”: minors, social media, and sexual assault trials. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 31May. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1934065.
56.
ReisdorfBCJewkesY (2016) (B)locked sites: cases of Internet use in three British prisons. Information, Communication & Society19(6): 771–786.
57.
RiosV (2017) Human Targets: Schools, Police, and the Criminalization of Latino Youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
SandersCBHannemS (2012) Policing ‘the risky’: technology and surveillance in everyday patrol work. Canadian Review of Sociology49(4): 389–410.
61.
SeoHBrittonHRamaswamyM, et al. (2020) Returning to the digital world: digital technology use and privacy management of women transitioning from incarceration. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 20October. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820966993.
62.
SheddC (2011) Countering the carceral continuum: the legacy of mass incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy10(3): 865–871.
63.
StuartFArmentaAOsborneM (2015) Legal control of marginal groups. Annual Review of Law and Social Science11(1): 235–254.
64.
TongSWaltherJB (2011) Relational maintenance and CMC. In: WrightKBWebbLM (eds) Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 98–118.
65.
TreemJLeonardiPVan den HooffB (2020) Computer-mediated communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 44–59.
66.
TrottierD (2012) Policing social media. Canadian Review of Sociology49(4): 411–425.
WiseMRodriguezD (2013) Detecting deceptive communication through computer-mediated technology: applying interpersonal deception theory to texting behavior. Communication Research Reports30(4): 342–346.
