Pages 96-151
Given the topics discussed in this chapter, and how many thoughts were floating around in my head as I read it, I thought it best to focus on discussing how mass incarceration works, rather than specifics about Michelle Alexander’s writing or style.
The way I understand it, as the Jim Crow laws faded out, there was some remaining racism in our country, specifically in the media. Presidents from Reagan to Clinton stressed the importance of fighting the War on Drugs. They explained that this was a major issue that needed to be addressed, though in that era, Americans did not feel the same way. According to Alexander, “at the time he declared this new war, less than 2 percent of the American public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation,” though perhaps this is because the nation’s crime rate actually remained stable throughout this period (Alexander 49). The government began not only putting pressure on law enforcement to catch as many of these kinds of criminals as possible, but they also gave them financial incentives to do so.
Essentially, the media and presidential campaigns turned the issue of crime, specifically drug crime, into a top priority. It also should be noted that it was primarily assumed by the media that African-Americans were responsible for this high drug crime rate, though that was not the case. Due to unequal represention, Americans became implicitly biased. Alexander reports that when told to envision a drug user, “ninety-five percent of respondents pictured a black drug user, while only 5 percent imagined other racial groups. These results contrast sharply with the reality of drug crime in America. African-Americans constituted only 15 percent of current drug users in 1995, and they constitute roughly the same percentage today” (Alexander 106).
Police officers, as American citizens, also became implicitly biased. With their financial incentives, they attempted to utilize the stop and frisk rules to their advantage by stopping the people that they thought were most likely to be carrying drugs. This meant that far more African-Americans were stopped and asked to be searched than people of other races. Alexander reports some data on this in the book, stating that “in Volucia County, Florida, a reporter obtained 148 hours of video footage documenting more than 1,000 highway stops conducted by state troopers. Only 5 percent of the drivers on the road were African-American or Latino, but more than 80 percent of the people stopped and searched were minorities” (Alexander 134).
For those who are stopped, they likely feel that they cannot refuse a search upon request due to not only the power dynamic between police and African-Americans, but also the lack of knowledge that they can refuse in the first place. It is safe to assume that a person who knowingly carries drugs in their car would not agree to a search if they knew that they could refuse, and if they felt safe doing so. Since this is not the case, those who are stopped and are carrying drugs on them will likely be arrested.
Once arrested, they do not typically have access to fair trials, or any for that matter. The punishment also may be so harsh that even an innocent individual accepts a plea bargain in order to avoid the risk of a decade or more in prison. For those who do have trials, the juries are also implicitly biased through their race. Many juries are made up of all white individuals, and those with African-Americans may not remain that way. Jurors can be stricken from the jury for essentially any reason at all. Alexander quotes the prosecutor of a 1995 Supreme Court case who stated, “I struck [juror] number twenty-two because of his long hair. He had long curly hair. He had the longest hair of anybody on the panel by far. He appeared not to be a good juror for that fact” (Alexander 122). As long as the prosecutor does not strike every single African-American juror, he or she cannot be claimed racist.
Furthermore, jurors are chosen “based on the list of registered voters or Department of Motor Vehicles lists—sources that contain disproportionately fewer people of color, because people of color are significantly less likely to own cars or registered to vote” (Alexander 119). Interestingly enough, the majority of felons are unable to vote as well, and many cannot afford cars, thus removing them from both lists of elligible jurors. Altogether, this makes for more African-Americans in jail for longer periods of time then most white felons. Eventually, this has led to a disproportionate number of African-Americans in jail when compared to white felons. By nature, this perpetuates the notion that police officers will be more successful if they target African-Americans because they believe that they commit drug crimes more often, since there are more of them in jail. And so the circle continues.
For me, this chapter solidified how much of a cycle the system truly is, and how difficult it is to break it, due to the near impossibility of claiming under a court of law that someone has been racially discriminated against at any point in this process. How would one prevent this from continuing? I would love to hear any opinions you may have, since I have a hard time seeing an opportunity to put a foot in the door of a system that is essentially seamless. This book has truly changed the way that I view the entire prison and law enforcement system, and for that reason, I would highly encourage any individual who has not done so already to get their hands on it. Thank you very much for reading, and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have!
The way I understand it, as the Jim Crow laws faded out, there was some remaining racism in our country, specifically in the media. Presidents from Reagan to Clinton stressed the importance of fighting the War on Drugs. They explained that this was a major issue that needed to be addressed, though in that era, Americans did not feel the same way. According to Alexander, “at the time he declared this new war, less than 2 percent of the American public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation,” though perhaps this is because the nation’s crime rate actually remained stable throughout this period (Alexander 49). The government began not only putting pressure on law enforcement to catch as many of these kinds of criminals as possible, but they also gave them financial incentives to do so.
Essentially, the media and presidential campaigns turned the issue of crime, specifically drug crime, into a top priority. It also should be noted that it was primarily assumed by the media that African-Americans were responsible for this high drug crime rate, though that was not the case. Due to unequal represention, Americans became implicitly biased. Alexander reports that when told to envision a drug user, “ninety-five percent of respondents pictured a black drug user, while only 5 percent imagined other racial groups. These results contrast sharply with the reality of drug crime in America. African-Americans constituted only 15 percent of current drug users in 1995, and they constitute roughly the same percentage today” (Alexander 106).
Police officers, as American citizens, also became implicitly biased. With their financial incentives, they attempted to utilize the stop and frisk rules to their advantage by stopping the people that they thought were most likely to be carrying drugs. This meant that far more African-Americans were stopped and asked to be searched than people of other races. Alexander reports some data on this in the book, stating that “in Volucia County, Florida, a reporter obtained 148 hours of video footage documenting more than 1,000 highway stops conducted by state troopers. Only 5 percent of the drivers on the road were African-American or Latino, but more than 80 percent of the people stopped and searched were minorities” (Alexander 134).
For those who are stopped, they likely feel that they cannot refuse a search upon request due to not only the power dynamic between police and African-Americans, but also the lack of knowledge that they can refuse in the first place. It is safe to assume that a person who knowingly carries drugs in their car would not agree to a search if they knew that they could refuse, and if they felt safe doing so. Since this is not the case, those who are stopped and are carrying drugs on them will likely be arrested.
Once arrested, they do not typically have access to fair trials, or any for that matter. The punishment also may be so harsh that even an innocent individual accepts a plea bargain in order to avoid the risk of a decade or more in prison. For those who do have trials, the juries are also implicitly biased through their race. Many juries are made up of all white individuals, and those with African-Americans may not remain that way. Jurors can be stricken from the jury for essentially any reason at all. Alexander quotes the prosecutor of a 1995 Supreme Court case who stated, “I struck [juror] number twenty-two because of his long hair. He had long curly hair. He had the longest hair of anybody on the panel by far. He appeared not to be a good juror for that fact” (Alexander 122). As long as the prosecutor does not strike every single African-American juror, he or she cannot be claimed racist.
Furthermore, jurors are chosen “based on the list of registered voters or Department of Motor Vehicles lists—sources that contain disproportionately fewer people of color, because people of color are significantly less likely to own cars or registered to vote” (Alexander 119). Interestingly enough, the majority of felons are unable to vote as well, and many cannot afford cars, thus removing them from both lists of elligible jurors. Altogether, this makes for more African-Americans in jail for longer periods of time then most white felons. Eventually, this has led to a disproportionate number of African-Americans in jail when compared to white felons. By nature, this perpetuates the notion that police officers will be more successful if they target African-Americans because they believe that they commit drug crimes more often, since there are more of them in jail. And so the circle continues.
For me, this chapter solidified how much of a cycle the system truly is, and how difficult it is to break it, due to the near impossibility of claiming under a court of law that someone has been racially discriminated against at any point in this process. How would one prevent this from continuing? I would love to hear any opinions you may have, since I have a hard time seeing an opportunity to put a foot in the door of a system that is essentially seamless. This book has truly changed the way that I view the entire prison and law enforcement system, and for that reason, I would highly encourage any individual who has not done so already to get their hands on it. Thank you very much for reading, and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have!
Hi Myah,
ReplyDeleteYou perfectly summarize the first half of the book! I find that Alexander has a lot of information and this post was helpful for me to wrap my mind around it. Great job!
Additionally, I also find it difficult to foresee an end to this entire system. I have wondered what it will take to change this system to be less discriminatory and overall more justified. I think that the first step to this would be doing exactly what Alexander has done, which is make people aware. This book has really opened my eyes, and others too, to this system. I think that the more people are consciously aware of how awful of a system we have, our society will realize we need to make some changes.
Great post!
Ellie M
Wow this was very interesting for me because I am reading a book on a different aspect of race. This for me was very educational because I have not yet read this book but after reading yours and others blogs on it, I may have to read because it seems so interesting! I think you did a very good job of integrating her information with your own thoughts. Nice job and I can’t wait to read more!
ReplyDeleteIt would seem, based on my reading of the previous section, that one solution would be to pressure legislators and lawmakers. The section that stuck me most was about the mandatory minimum sentences. The passage where Alexander described the judge crying as he passed down a mandatory sentence he didn't agree with was particularly effective. Certainly, Alexander argues, they don't work as they were perhaps intended to, and judges don't seem in favor of them, so perhaps that would be one small step in breaking the cycle.
ReplyDeleteHi Myah! I can relate to everything you wrote about your thoughts while reading this section, because I had the same reaction. It is truly shocking how messed up this system has become, and how it continues to this day. One part from this reading that I found incredibly shocking was the part about how easily African-American and other minority jurors are able to be dismissed from trials, for no reason other than blatant racism. It was appalling to me how often this apparently happens, and how nobody puts a stop to it. Is it because more Americans are racist than we think, or do they just not care enough to put an end to racist behavior by others? I wonder that about the entire problem with the legal system as well. I think that as Americans, we generally like to think that the majority of us aren't racist, but with such a huge problem, that is hard to believe.
ReplyDelete