I fail to understand how anyone could be even the slightest bit surprised at the idea of discrimination in our justice system, especially since, as of late, we have become all too familiar with the injustices and racism inherent in so many of our police policies. Stop and Frisk, for example, has dominated the New York media outlets in recent years, particularly because of the shocking extent of discrimination that it brings to light. In New York City, 80% of all stops made by NYPD officers were either black or Latino. The ignorance that that percentage implies is frankly just mind-boggling. In what may perhaps be the most egregious illustration of our country’s nearly irreparable level of racism, the U.S. Sentencing Commission divulged that “Black male offenders have continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders.” Black offenders receive sentences 10% longer than their white counterparts. There can be no greater indication of police and judicial contempt of Blacks in America than that extremely depressing, and slightly nauseating, reality.
While the concept of institutionalized racism did not catch me off guard, the crux of Michelle Alexander’s argument was, initially at least, a bit off-putting. The idea that our justice system was engineered to restrict the rights and liberties of black communities struck me as conspiratorial. Yet, as Alexander continuously and deliberately built her case, the possibility emerged that her seemingly outlandish claims could, in fact, contain some truth. If I understand the author correctly, our current state essentially arose from the political incentive to exploit the racist tendencies of Americans nationwide by “cracking down on crime,” which, at that point, was basically code for “discriminating against blacks.” Just the consideration of these concepts is enough to bring an entirely new perspective with which to view crime in America.
