"The New Jim Crow"

There is a clear reason why chapter five of The New Jim Crow is the titular chapter. A significant portion of the chapter summarizes and recycles information already expanded upon in previous chapters. I may even go as far as to say that if you only read this chapter, you would have a solid understanding of the book as a whole.

Chapter five discusses the similarities and differences (briefly) between mass incarceration and the Jim Crow Laws. From my interpretation, this is the premise of the entire book. A couple of pages into the chapter, Alexander begins “mapping the parallels” (190). In her opinion, the parallels between mass incarceration and Jim Crow include historical parallels, legalized discrimination, political disenfranchisement, exclusion from juries, closing the courthouse doors, racial segregation, and the symbolic production of race. All of these parallels have already been discussed thoroughly in other chapters.

Alexander discussed historical parallels in the first chapter, “The Rebirth of Caste.”

Both “The Rebirth of Caste” and “The New Jim Crow” discuss how both Jim Crow Laws and mass incarceration were policies adopted to keep poor whites and blacks from uniting against white elites.

Alexander discussed legalized discrimination in the fourth chapter, “The Cruel Hand.”

Chapter Four talks largely about how ex-offenders are barred from jobs, housing, public benefits, and public accommodations. In this chapter, Alexander compares this to how black people were segregated and barred from these same things during Jim Crow. She essentially restates one of her main points from the previous chapter.

Alexander discussed political disenfranchisement in “The Cruel Hand.”

My last blog post was entirely about disenfranchisement. Alexander makes the exact same points as she did in “The Cruel Hand,” comparing felon disenfranchisement to poll taxes and literacy tests.

Alexander discussed exclusion from juries in the third chapter, “The Color of Justice.”

This paragraph is particularly repetitive to me because there was no additional, strong connection to the Jim Crow laws. She only restated that prosecutors could strike jurors based on weak reasons, leading to greater discretion and covert racism.

Alexander discussed “closing the courthouse doors” in “The Color of Justice.”

She again talks about McCleskey v. Kemp and discusses how this Supreme Court decision made it nearly impossible to make claims of racial bias in the justice system. She connects this to Dred Scott v. Sandford from the mid-19th century.

In the interest of keeping this post a reasonable length, I won’t continue. I think you see my point. To me, this chapter seems largely repetitive of prior chapters.

I far prefered the section where she contrasted Jim Crow and mass incarceration. While she framed this section as the differences between the two, she was really refuting opposing arguments, which I found effective. One of the key differences between Jim Crow and mass incarceration is that white people are also impacted negatively by the latter. Alexander treats this as an opposing argument to her claim that mass incarceration is the “New Jim Crow.” She refutes this by going on what appears to be a tangent about drunk driving. She talks about how dangerous drunk driving is and how much of an issue it was during the 1980s. But, instead of waging a war on drunk driving, the United States wages the War on Drugs, which unlike drunk driving was not a perceived issue. 78% of drunk drivers are white males (207). She uses this information to show that, while white people were affected by the War on Drugs, it’s targeting the black population.

I also liked Alexander’s metaphor with the birdcage. She described mass incarceration as just one wire of a birdcage. On its own, it won’t trap the bird, but in combination with other, seemingly insignificant wires, it forms a cage that’s nearly inescapable. Birdcages have been used as a symbol for racial oppression many times, but I found this interpretation (although it was not Alexander’s; she credited Iris Marion Young) unique.

Overall, the repetition in this chapter overwhelmed many of the things I may have enjoyed. Yes, Alexander provided more evidence to support her claims, but she had already established those claims very well. At this point, it was just overkill. I like Alexander’s writing style, and I think the content is compelling, but it could be cut down.

"The Cruel Hand"

Disenfranchisement.

Unemployment.

Homelessness.

These are the consequences of being a charged felon in America. In the fourth chapter of The New Jim Crow titled “The Cruel Hand”, Michelle Alexander discusses the impact of a felony beyond jail time.

The consequences of jail time break key foundations of American society. America is a culture with an infamous “dream,” a dream of upward mobility and social equality to all citizens regardless of class, race, or religion. The American Dream is a large component of American culture, and the term “dream” is certainly accurate because it is a fantasy that is nearly unattainable, especially for felons.

Have you filled out an application recently? I did for a volunteer program, and I didn’t think twice when I checked the “no” box when asked whether I had been convicted of a felony. This isn’t the case for the 65 million Americans who are required to check yes (Alexander, 147). What employer is going to hire a felon? What landlord would lease to a felon? Given the choice, very few will provide ex-offenders with the opportunities necessary for success. Their crime, whatever the magnitude, will affect their futures socially and financially throughout their futures. Regardless of the crime, this doesn’t seem fair to me.

Beyond unfair, however, is felon disenfranchisement. A constitutional right in American democracy is the right to vote. Once convicted of a felony, this right is taken away, and after sentence completion, the right to vote can be difficult to regain. For example, Clinton Drake was arrested for possession of $10 worth of marijuana. He spent five years in prison. Now he has to pay a $900 fee in order to regain his democratic rights (Alexander, 160). Like many others, Drake cannot afford to pay these fines, so these fees essentially bar poor black people from employing their right to vote.

Eight years after the publication of The New Jim Crow, progress was finally made for felon disenfranchisement. In November of 2018, courts and legislatures amended Florida’s constitution, giving all felons who have completed their sentences (excluding those charged with murder and felony sexual assault) full voting rights. This restored the voting rights to over 1.5 million ex-offenders (Mak). Amendment 4 to Florida’s constitution gave some rights back to black people targeted by America’s War on Drugs, and it is a step in the right direction. A Florida judge said:

"In Florida, elected, partisan officials have extraordinary authority to grant or withhold the right to vote from hundreds of thousands of people without any constraints, guidelines, or standards" (Mak)

Unfortunately, yesterday (Tuesday, March 19), Florida’s legislature passed a bill that detracts from the value of the amendment and limits felon enfranchisement. Republicans aim to require “former felons to pay back all court fees and fines before they can register” to vote (Timm). If this bill is made into law, it will take away nearly all of the benefits from Amendment 4 because very few ex-offenders would be able to pay the fee.

These events in Florida within the past 6 months show that the impact of incarceration on felons is still true and relevant today, nine years later. I sincerely hope that the bill does not go any further, but we will see. Progress is slow, but it is still progress.

"The Color of Justice"

In the third chapter titled “The Color of Justice”, Michelle Alexander

mainly discusses how courts make it legally difficult for people of color
to challenge their prosecutors in terms of racial bias. Alexander appeals to
logos by providing logical evidence of racial injustice in court cases as well as
through statistics. Alexander also appeals effectively to pathos with personal
anecdotes of victims of racial discrimination.

Alexander’s argument is very persuasive. She uses numerous cases and their
outcomes as clear and compelling evidence for her claim. The main case
Alexander uses for support is McCleskey vs. Kemp. Warren McCleskey faced the
death penalty for killing a white police officer in an armed robbery. He challenged
his sentence on the grounds of racial bias, appealing to the fourteenth amendment,
which grants equal rights to African Americans, and the eighth amendment, which
prohibits arbitrary punishment. The Supreme Court rejected McCleskey’s claim
saying that there is no clear and explicit evidence of racism. Therefore, covert
racism, if not admitted to, was deemed constitutionally acceptable.

 

McCleskey vs. Kemp is the most notable of the court cases mentioned in this
chapter to me. McCleskey provided a significant amount of statistics indicating
that racial discrimination existed in criminal justice, which I personally found
very compelling. Apparently, black men accused of homicide are 4.3 times more
likely than white men to be sentenced to death (110). I am not ignoring that
McCleskey killed someone, and I do think he deserves to be punished, but I found
the disparity between the number of blacks and the number of whites sentenced to
death persuasive. 70% of black people convicted of murder are given the death
penalty compared to 19% of white people convicted of the same crime (110).
This is by no means fair and is clearly (at least in my eyes) evidence of racial bias,
and with my interpretation of the fourteenth and eighth amendments,
this seems very much unconstitutional.

Alexander used many statistics to prove her point about racial discrimination in
law enforcement and the courts. The most impactful stat she used, in my opinion,
if that “ninety-five percent of respondents pictured a black drug user while only
5 percent imagined other racial groups” when asked to envision and describe a
drug user (106). I found these numbers astounding, and I tried to imagine my own
stereotypical drug user (with little success because I was already influenced by
what I had read and was thinking too much about race).

  
Although I am generally a statistics-and-numbers-kind of person, I found
Alexander’s appeal to pathos more persuasive. Throughout the book (so far)
Alexander has used a lot of anecdotes. In fact, she starts her book with one.
This chapter is no exception. The chapter starts with two anecdotes,
the first about Erma Faye Stewart. Stewart is a black mother of two arrested in a
drug sweep in Texas. She is innocent. However, after a month in jail and in
desperate need of childcare, she takes a plea bargain. She is sentenced to ten years
of probation, ordered to pay 1,000 dollars of fines, and branded as a felon. The
felon label got her evicted from public housing which resulted in her children
being taken away from her. The second is the story of Clifford Runoalds.
Runoalds went to Texas to attend the funeral of his eighteen-month-old daughter
when he was arrested for drug crimes. He was held in jail for a month, pleading
his innocence, before charges were dropped and he was free. However, he’d lost
his apartment and job, as well as the last opportunity to see his daughter before she
was six feet under.

Compared to the first two chapters, I found these stories more persuasive because
the people in these stories were actually innocent. Don’t get me wrong, I think that
bias’ effect on police searches is horrible, but the only stories (at least that I
remember) involved the police actually finding drugs even though they didn’t have
probable cause. Although I agree that the officers’ motives were wrong, I think that
possession of cocaine and other illegal drugs also isn’t good. [However, I did find
the 57 Bus a powerful book (and a true story), and although one of the main
characters, Richard (who set the skirt of an agendered person on fire) was guilty, I
still felt bad for him and his situation in court. Richard faced some issues in regards
to race because he was also black. Although Richard did something absolutely
horrible, he was actually one of my favorite characters and I found him kind of
sweet.] When the people in the stories are completely innocent and lose so much
just because they were suspected due to the color of their skin, it strengthens the
impact of the story. Before I was conflicted because the police officers used what I
think are unconstitutional methods but also the person of color being searched did
possess drugs. Examples without actual drug users make the injustice of racial
discrimination in law enforcement more apparent because no crime was committed.

Beyond her rhetoric, I preferred this chapter over the first two. First off, Alexander
addressed the issue of implicit bias, which in my experience is the more common
form of racism. I have yet to meet someone who is overtly racist, so (although she
provided good evidence) I had trouble believing the purposeful use of criminal
justice to oppress black people. The more I read, the more I realize that truly,
explicitly racist people are out there. It is disheartening, but I guess it is our reality.
At least where I live and with the kind of people I interact with, subconscious
racial bias is far more common.

Introduction, Rebirth of Caste, The Lockdown

Hello readers!

This blog will be about The New Jim Crow, a political commentary on the effect of mass incarceration on the African American population. The New Jim Crow is written by Michelle Alexander, a civil rights lawyer and writer, and it explores her view of mass incarceration as a racial caste system.

Alexander explicitly states her purpose in the introduction, saying that the book is intended to “stimulate a much-needed conversation about the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating racial hierarchy in the United States” (16). Like many people, including Alexander, I previously believed that racial issues in the justice system were caused only by subconscious bias against black people, rather than covert methods of intentional racism. However, Alexander presents the idea that politicians specifically waged the War on Drugs (during a period where drug use was on the decline) to imprison African Americans and gain political power and votes from the white population. To prove this point, Alexander quotes a political insider during the Reagan administration who said that Reagan appealed to “the emotional distress of those who fear or resent the Negro, and who expect Reagan somehow to keep him ‘in his place’ or at least echo their own anger and frustration” (48).

The Jim Crow laws elevated the status of poor white Americans, so when they were repealed during the Civil Rights Movement, lower class whites lost power and blacks became their equals. While Democratic elites supported progress for racial equality, they were out of touch with the “common man” who bore the brunt of civil rights reform. Republican candidates, such as Richard Nixon, wanted to gain the votes of these unhappy, lower class whites, but overt racism was now unacceptable. Instead, he appealed to his audience by waging the War on Drugs while using racially coded language to sway voters without providing evidence to his critics.

Alexander continues to elaborate on the political scheme for mass incarceration as she describes the emergence of crack cocaine. Crack cocaine emerged largely in black neighborhoods while powder cocaine remained more common in white society. However, the media focused largely on crack cocaine as opposed to its “white” counterpart, with the Washington Post alone running 1,565 stories (52). Media portrayed a negative image of black neighborhoods, and law enforcement punished more African Americans.

She uses evidence of “unconstitutional” search and seizure to further her point. Alexander describes the evolution of the fourth amendment in a series of Supreme Court cases. With these cases, qualifications for the amendment are removed, most notably probable cause, allowing police officers to search citizens on a hunch. This essentially allows police officers to judge others based on appearance and, in this case, the color of their skin. Because of the social indoctrination of black inferiority, even if police officers are unconsciously being racist, they are more likely to search a black man for seeming suspicious without any other evidence. This is similar to the What Would You Do? video we watched in class today where the black man was the only one confronted as he pretended to steal a bike. The white man and woman did not seem suspicious because of their race (if the experiment was done correctly without any other variables) whereas the black man who was committing the exact same crime was the only one challenged. Similarly, police are known for (consciously or not) targeting people of color, and the alterations to the fourth amendment eliminate the protection many black people would get from law enforcement. Alexander uses the example of a black man who is sleeping innocently on a bus when he is forcefully awakened by the police. The police ask to see his ticket and ID and later ask to search his luggage in search of drugs. In this case, the man is doing nothing to seem suspicious, just taking a nap on his way someplace. However, because of his race, the police had a hunch that he was carrying drugs and searched him without probable cause. In my opinion (and Alexander’s) this is unconstitutional by the wording of the fourth amendment. She uses this case to emphasize racial bias in the justice system.

Being charged with a felony places harsh limitations on nearly all aspects of life, and these increased searches on black people lead to more arrests and convictions. Therefore, the number of black felons increased along with the elimination of probable cause. The label of felon limits your opportunities and resources because the felon is “barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to ‘check the box’ indicating a felony conviction on employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions” (94). In short, felons are locked out of mainstream society and never truly acclimate to life outside of prison. Because black people are typically targeted by law enforcement, they are more greatly affected by this. This is why Alexander titles her book The New Jim Crow because many black people are incarcerated, and once they are, they are permanently segregated from normal society.

Do I agree with Alexander? Yes and no. I agree with her that this system started with racism, and I agree that developments in the justice system are unconstitutional and unfair. However, Alexander frames the issue as a government scheme, like their intent is to further social and racial injustice. While I agree that there is racism in the government, I think (or maybe I’d like to think) that it is subconscious as opposed to a vicious attempt to oppress blacks. Maybe I’m naive in believing that most people (including politicians) have a moral compass, but I think that Alexander’s view of the War on Drugs as a government plot to put black people at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid is too extreme and could be toned down a bit. I agree that there are racial undertones; however, I think there needs to be a greater balance between open racism and subconscious bias.

Then again, with current politics, who knows?