The War on Drugs incentivized aggressive law enforcement tactics as well as disproportionate sentencing, threatening those swept up into the criminal justice system. Federal grants and congressional policies to combat drug ownership (not so much dealership) facilitate the existence of a ruthless paramilitary force that is costly and detrimental to society. Law enforcement tactics meant for combating drug use process large volumes of individuals as to catch the one or two individuals that are actually guilty of a crime. Last week we were discussing possible solutions for institutionalized discrimination. Congressional policies such as the three-strike policy or the War on Drugs that are punitive and socially conservative cause a cascade of reforms that neglect societal freedoms and largely benefit the policy-makers that try to garner support of socially conservative voters. One might ask what society would have been like had the War on Drugs not been conceived?

We all understand the the body responsible for these patterns, conspiracies aside, is law enforcement. Law enforcement officials, however, are given a lot of power when they can deduce reasonable suspicion. Unfortunately, the factors that contribute to the decision to investigate/apprehend a drug use suspect are more present in African American communities; poverty, crime rates, gang violence, etc. Racial profiling, which is a hot topic in recent years, is clear and present in drug arrest patterns today.

The racist pattern of incarceration end up dooming the population that has been incarcerated. In Chapter three, Alexander tells the story of victims who lost rights and welfare possibility because of their crime history. I can only imagine that this leads to further drug use/arrest etc.

My question is: how can we intervene in this cycle of incarceration and relapse, while maintaining equality in the arrest process?

Chapter 2 of the book talks about the fourth amendment, where peoples civil rights are mentioned. According to law, a police officer must read the person he/she is arresting the person’s Miranda Rights. However, the problem with this is that if the people do not know they have the right to remain silent, then there is no point in the existence of these rights. Similarly, according to the Reform Acts, the suspects were asked before their possessions were searched. However, if these people did not know they had the right to refuse, then what is the point of the right’s existence? It exists for the sake of mere formality.

Furthermore, Alexander also brings up the idea of discrimination and inherent feelings of racism. For example, when a group of seemingly “unbiased” whites were asked who they thought were most likely to be the drug dealers/users, most of them replied African Americans. In reality, however, there are more whites who use and sell drugs than there are blacks. This is indicative of the feelings of racism that has unfortunately seemed to embed itself into the heart of this nation.

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?

As I read about how polices searched people during the Drug War, I wondered if what they were doing was okay. They did ask the people for permission to search bags and if permission was granted then they were able to search. On one hand, the people did not know that they could say no to the police; however, the police were able to more efficiently search for drugs.

The Reform Act had some flaws and I wonder what the purpose for these laws to be made were. For example, if you owned property that someone else was using for drugs, you could be held guilty. Also, many people were not willing to pay more for  an attorney than what their assets cost. Finally, the government, instead of making expelling drug crime their first priority, often seizes assets because of the revenue it will bring in. I was wondering how true these claims are about the Reform Act and if there are any statistics to support this information.

I’m surprised that I’ve never heard about this book on the news before because it deals with such a controversial topic.  Michelle Alexander claims that the War on Drugs is a conspiracy to continue racial discrimination and encourage racial injustices.  In the first chapter, Alexander reasons that there never should have been a War on Drugs because there wasn’t really a drug problem.  In the second and third chapters, she provides many examples of how the War has been used to incriminate blacks.  With all the information she provides, people have to wonder if African Americans really are being targeted.

Alexander does not include much information about what happens in court cases, similar to the ones she had mentioned, when the accused are white.  While it would be nice if she could give a fuller picture, I don’t expect her to, simply because this book reminds me of a persuasive essay.  The chapters in this book are already long, and bringing in the other cases might weaken her argument.  If people want to learn more about the other side, that information should be available in another book; it does not belong in this one.

In these two chapters, I am most curious about how it is legal for SWAT teams to invade people’s homes.  It doesn’t make any sense to me.  Also, when these invasions happen, the authorities are looking for drugs.  Why would they need the SWAT team to do that in the first place?

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