Pages 200-261
We have finally reached the end of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander! In the spirit of my final blog post, I would like to take a look back at some of the arguments that were explored in this book. The first and most obvious question that Alexander answers right from the start is, does a system of mass incarceration even exist, and if so, does it specifically target African-Americans? In short, the answers are yes and yes (information on this can be found in the introduction for those who are unconvinced). The next obvious question is how does this system function? I have already gone into this quite extensively in a previous blog post––"Pages 96-151"––so I will not bore you with details yet again. Instead, I would like to focus on a more accusatory argument that Alexander makes: To what extent has the United States Government created and perpetuated a system that intentionally targets African-Americans through mass incarceration? My thoughts aside, Alexander would argue that it has played quite a large role.
As it is explained in the book, the birth of mass incarceration essentially stems from presidents' attempts to be "tough on crime." Nixon, Reagan, George Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama are particularly noted as the ones who made this a priority, focusing primarily on drug crime. This is surprising considering the fact that not only did "less than 2 percent of the American public [view] drugs as the most important issue facing the nation" during Reagan's administration (Alexander 49), but "at the close of the decade, drunk drivers were responsible for approximately 22,000 deaths annually, while overall alcohol-related deaths were close to 100,000 a year. By contrast, during the same time period [...], the total of all drug-related deaths due to AIDS, drug overdose, or the violence associated with the illegal drug trade, was estimated at 21,000 annually" (Alexander 206). Clearly, priorities were placed on neither the most publicly important, nor the most fatal issues facing our nation at the time. It also should be noted that though African-Americans are no more likely than any other racial group in the United States to partake in illegal drug activities, Reagan used "racially coded rhetoric" to create the idea that Afridcan-Americans were largely at fault for American drug crime. Alexander argues that by waging a war on drugs and using rhetoric to blame a specific race for crime that is interracial, the executive branch has contributed to the mass incarceration targeted at African-Americans.
Additionally, congress has approved several revisions to "the program that provides federal aid to law enforcement," which is now specifically "designed to encourage every federal grant recipient to help fight the War on Drugs" (Alexander 73). This financial incentive encourages law enforcement to target citizens who commit drug crimes, which is a huge contributor to the reason why they are so focused on drug crime rather than alcohol-related crime, for example. Combined with the portrayal from the media––that is partially the fault of presidential rhetoric––law enforcement is implicitly biased to believe that African-Americans are more likely to possess drugs, so they are the primary targets of stop and frisks, and thus more frequently caught. Congress is also responsible for enacting a five year minimum sentence for crack cocaine, while powder cocaine––its chemical equivalent, but the form largely used by white people rather than African-Americans––does not yield nearly as long of a sentence. In fact, "a conviction for the sale of five hundred grams of powder cocaine triggers a five-year mandatory sentence, while only five grams of crack triggers the same sentence" (Alexander 109). Alexander argues that by providing these financial incentives and enacting mandatory five year sentences for crack cocaine possession, the legislative branch is in part responsible for the system of mass incarceration.
Finally, Alexander uses several Supreme Court cases as evidence for how difficult it is for those unjustly sentenced to claim racial discrimination of any kind. In McClesky v. Kemp, Warren McClesky, "a black man facing the death penalty for killing a white police officer," attempted to claim racial discrimination for his sentence through an analysis of "over two thousand murder cases" (Alexander 107). Though the study found that blacks who kill whites are 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who kill blacks, "accounting for thirty-five nonracial variables," McClesky lost his case (Alexander 107). In Purkett v. Elm, it was decided that it was constitutional for the prosecutor to say, "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 120). A prosecutor may now strike any juror based on any "race-neutral" reason, even if those stricken are almost exclusively African-American, provided the judge does not rule it too "silly or superstitious" (Alexander 120). Alexander argues that by essentially preventing them from legal protection from racist law enforcement practices under the Fourteenth or any other ammendment, the judicial branch has contributed to the unjust treatment of African-Americans through mass incarceration.
As we have discussed many times throughout this blog, mass incarceration is a multi-layered, extremely complex system. No single practice or organization is responsible for its effects. However, Alexander has provided substantial evidence in The New Jim Crow that the United States Government has played a significant role in its birth and in many other steps along the way. Though Alexander argues that the targeting of African-Americans was intentional and done as an act of racism and oppression, this is more difficult to provide substantial evidence for. How can one prove that something was done with malicious intent? Personally, I do not feel as though this is the thing we should primarily discuss as a takeaway from this book. Whether or not this was intentional, it exists nonetheless. This is the main takeaway that I hope you left with, as I did. I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this book as a whole and what you found was the most important message overall. I would also like to thank you for reading this post and any others you may have stumbled upon. It has been a pleasure to share my thoughts.
As it is explained in the book, the birth of mass incarceration essentially stems from presidents' attempts to be "tough on crime." Nixon, Reagan, George Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama are particularly noted as the ones who made this a priority, focusing primarily on drug crime. This is surprising considering the fact that not only did "less than 2 percent of the American public [view] drugs as the most important issue facing the nation" during Reagan's administration (Alexander 49), but "at the close of the decade, drunk drivers were responsible for approximately 22,000 deaths annually, while overall alcohol-related deaths were close to 100,000 a year. By contrast, during the same time period [...], the total of all drug-related deaths due to AIDS, drug overdose, or the violence associated with the illegal drug trade, was estimated at 21,000 annually" (Alexander 206). Clearly, priorities were placed on neither the most publicly important, nor the most fatal issues facing our nation at the time. It also should be noted that though African-Americans are no more likely than any other racial group in the United States to partake in illegal drug activities, Reagan used "racially coded rhetoric" to create the idea that Afridcan-Americans were largely at fault for American drug crime. Alexander argues that by waging a war on drugs and using rhetoric to blame a specific race for crime that is interracial, the executive branch has contributed to the mass incarceration targeted at African-Americans.
Additionally, congress has approved several revisions to "the program that provides federal aid to law enforcement," which is now specifically "designed to encourage every federal grant recipient to help fight the War on Drugs" (Alexander 73). This financial incentive encourages law enforcement to target citizens who commit drug crimes, which is a huge contributor to the reason why they are so focused on drug crime rather than alcohol-related crime, for example. Combined with the portrayal from the media––that is partially the fault of presidential rhetoric––law enforcement is implicitly biased to believe that African-Americans are more likely to possess drugs, so they are the primary targets of stop and frisks, and thus more frequently caught. Congress is also responsible for enacting a five year minimum sentence for crack cocaine, while powder cocaine––its chemical equivalent, but the form largely used by white people rather than African-Americans––does not yield nearly as long of a sentence. In fact, "a conviction for the sale of five hundred grams of powder cocaine triggers a five-year mandatory sentence, while only five grams of crack triggers the same sentence" (Alexander 109). Alexander argues that by providing these financial incentives and enacting mandatory five year sentences for crack cocaine possession, the legislative branch is in part responsible for the system of mass incarceration.
Finally, Alexander uses several Supreme Court cases as evidence for how difficult it is for those unjustly sentenced to claim racial discrimination of any kind. In McClesky v. Kemp, Warren McClesky, "a black man facing the death penalty for killing a white police officer," attempted to claim racial discrimination for his sentence through an analysis of "over two thousand murder cases" (Alexander 107). Though the study found that blacks who kill whites are 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who kill blacks, "accounting for thirty-five nonracial variables," McClesky lost his case (Alexander 107). In Purkett v. Elm, it was decided that it was constitutional for the prosecutor to say, "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 120). A prosecutor may now strike any juror based on any "race-neutral" reason, even if those stricken are almost exclusively African-American, provided the judge does not rule it too "silly or superstitious" (Alexander 120). Alexander argues that by essentially preventing them from legal protection from racist law enforcement practices under the Fourteenth or any other ammendment, the judicial branch has contributed to the unjust treatment of African-Americans through mass incarceration.
As we have discussed many times throughout this blog, mass incarceration is a multi-layered, extremely complex system. No single practice or organization is responsible for its effects. However, Alexander has provided substantial evidence in The New Jim Crow that the United States Government has played a significant role in its birth and in many other steps along the way. Though Alexander argues that the targeting of African-Americans was intentional and done as an act of racism and oppression, this is more difficult to provide substantial evidence for. How can one prove that something was done with malicious intent? Personally, I do not feel as though this is the thing we should primarily discuss as a takeaway from this book. Whether or not this was intentional, it exists nonetheless. This is the main takeaway that I hope you left with, as I did. I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this book as a whole and what you found was the most important message overall. I would also like to thank you for reading this post and any others you may have stumbled upon. It has been a pleasure to share my thoughts.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Alexander's accusations against the government. I think you've nicely synthesized her arguments, and I found the section on Supreme Court cases particularly interesting. As there are some strong counter-arguments to Alexander's points, I'd be interested in hearing how you feel about her claims.
ReplyDelete