In The New Jim Crow, the author presents many points that bolster her argument regarding the racial disparities that exist in our present incarceration system. Michelle Alexander discusses many Supreme Court cases that “bless” racial discriminating done by the police and prosecutors. However, it seems to me that she does not actually consider the nature of the case.

The case I am particularly referring to is McCleskey v. Kemp. The crux of the case centered around an African American man, Warren McCleskey, facing the death penalty for killing an officer in an armed robbery. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court due to supposed evidence of racial bias in the fact that the prosecutor pursued the death penalty because of race. It seems like the author is set on proving that the Supreme Court has fostered an environment for the development of racial disparities, that she forget the fact that the man was a murderer! Whether or not he deserves the death penalty is obviously an important key, but so are his actions. Ms. Alexander seems to disregard his action and wants to prove a certain “injustice” towards the criminal. It seems to me that she is acting from a biased stand point through her argument. She is definitely not presenting the case in an objective light but with a light rife with her own feelings. It is also pretty terrifying that the author accuses the Supreme Court of encouraging racism, she definitely does not point out all the trials that actually took place. In a sense, she expects fairness from the justice system, yet she does not provide a fair assessment of the court herself.

My question is does the author truly present a fair view of the justice system? Does this weaken her entire argument?

David Zilberman