The first thing that struck me as odd was the way the author wrote about our justice system. She brings up statistics which really strive to distort the data to fit her thoughts. For example, she talks about how the system is not geared towards trying to catch the drug dealers, and she cites the statistic that only 1 out of every 5 arrests for drug possession are dealers. My problem with that statistic is the fact that a dealer generally caters to more than one person, and so, if the goal is to fight drug possession, getting a drug dealer for every 4 users seems extraordinary.
But she brings in other skewed data as well, and passes them off as facts. The “fact” that there are paid witnesses, and that the justice system has a lot of flaws is only evidence that the justice system has a lot of flaws. That’s it. It doesn’t mean that the system is skewed; it means that people are. The fact that there is something wrong with the people means that the people need to be fixed.
The question of whether the system is flawed or the people are flawed is a very big one in this book. The idea, however, that you could change the system to fit the ideals of one group of people, specifically when the main group of people running the system have mixed feelings about that minority group, is absurd. Thus, I cannot agree with Ms. Alexander any less.
My question is to the author: Does she really believe that the justice system today would be all that bad, even if we were to take the ideas of people out of the picture? Does the fact that the system was made by people make the system itself that bad?
I do agree with you on the point that the author really does seem to be skewing data so much so that it almost seems the numbers are fake. While these numbers might indeed be true, they are completely taken out of context and merely used to “fit into” the argument she is trying to make. She does not really address the opposing point of view, nor does she take statistics holistically, which serves to weaken her argument.