Scan barcode
A review by calarco
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander
5.0
Making a well-argued case for macro level socio-economic structural injustice is no small feat. A great lawyer and an even better communicator—Michelle Alexander accomplishes just this in [b:The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness|6792458|The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness|Michelle Alexander|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328751532i/6792458._SX50_.jpg|6996712]. Even if the topic of race makes you uncomfortable, I would still consider this work a must-read if you want to understand the current status quo of the criminal justice system and the war on drugs.
Often when activists push for social change and equality, they look to make the case for a group’s shared merit and humanity by bolstering their most exceptional representatives—so goes the politics of respectability. While this pragmatic approach cannot be fully faulted as it worked for figures like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. ultimately enabling them to strategically push the needle forward, there are still many left un-championed in this scenario. Humans are innately imperfect, often lacking the luck and resources to truly stand without a single flaw. What of the social under caste, the pariah, the homo sacer—the convict? And who in this system becomes the convicted?
"Whether a kid is perceived as a dangerous drug-dealing thug or instead is viewed as a good kid who was merely experimenting with drugs and selling to a few of his friends has to do with the ways in which information about illegal drug activity is racially defined." (118)
In a country where those on both the left and right boast “colorblindness” (albeit for differing ends) as part of their central messaging, this prevailing principle will innately trickle into policy and law. Alexander argues that under this guise black Americans have been incarcerated at alarmingly high rates—statistics show black people are not more likely to use drugs than white people, yet they are disproportionately arrested for drug offences. History and science would both show that a person’s race does not make them more likely to commit crimes, but it certainly has (and does) make them more likely to be codified by society as a potential criminal.
That said, this increase in incarceration has little to do with increase in crime, and more to do with a changes in policy under the Reagan and Clinton administrations—politicians who were concerned with being “tough” on crime. These "colorblind" policies compounded by the Supreme Court decision on McCleskey v. Kemp makes it virtually impossible for lawyers to challenge racial bias in court, even when they have overwhelming evidence.
"More African American adults are under correctional control today--in prison or jail, on probation or parole--than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began" (180)
Mass incarceration is innately damaging to the communities effected. When someone becomes a criminal, depending on the nature of the conviction, they are left unable to vote, unable to drive, unable to access government services to help lift their families out of poverty, and with limited access to jobs are left very vulnerable. All that is gained is social stigma and shame. This is a situation that would keep not just the convicted caught in a vicious cycle, but all those associated and dependent on that individual as well.
Prisons, many for-profit, are still here to stay even if they function more as facilities of punishment over rehabilitation. They are also a major force behind the justification of gerrymandering certain districts with black and brown bodies (who are unable to vote) counted juxtaposed to predominantly white communities. This reality is chilling especially as it results in all too similar a situation as the Three-Fifths Compromise over 200 years ago.
This content is not for the faint of heart, but Michelle Alexander truly does a great job of detailing how policy and court decisions directly and indirectly impact Americans on a national, societal level. She is also good at making historical connections, while still emphasizing how each system is innately unique—slavery, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration—each a completely different animal. However, if you aren’t afraid to look the beast in the eye, then I implore you to read this book.
Often when activists push for social change and equality, they look to make the case for a group’s shared merit and humanity by bolstering their most exceptional representatives—so goes the politics of respectability. While this pragmatic approach cannot be fully faulted as it worked for figures like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. ultimately enabling them to strategically push the needle forward, there are still many left un-championed in this scenario. Humans are innately imperfect, often lacking the luck and resources to truly stand without a single flaw. What of the social under caste, the pariah, the homo sacer—the convict? And who in this system becomes the convicted?
"Whether a kid is perceived as a dangerous drug-dealing thug or instead is viewed as a good kid who was merely experimenting with drugs and selling to a few of his friends has to do with the ways in which information about illegal drug activity is racially defined." (118)
In a country where those on both the left and right boast “colorblindness” (albeit for differing ends) as part of their central messaging, this prevailing principle will innately trickle into policy and law. Alexander argues that under this guise black Americans have been incarcerated at alarmingly high rates—statistics show black people are not more likely to use drugs than white people, yet they are disproportionately arrested for drug offences. History and science would both show that a person’s race does not make them more likely to commit crimes, but it certainly has (and does) make them more likely to be codified by society as a potential criminal.
That said, this increase in incarceration has little to do with increase in crime, and more to do with a changes in policy under the Reagan and Clinton administrations—politicians who were concerned with being “tough” on crime. These "colorblind" policies compounded by the Supreme Court decision on McCleskey v. Kemp makes it virtually impossible for lawyers to challenge racial bias in court, even when they have overwhelming evidence.
"More African American adults are under correctional control today--in prison or jail, on probation or parole--than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began" (180)
Mass incarceration is innately damaging to the communities effected. When someone becomes a criminal, depending on the nature of the conviction, they are left unable to vote, unable to drive, unable to access government services to help lift their families out of poverty, and with limited access to jobs are left very vulnerable. All that is gained is social stigma and shame. This is a situation that would keep not just the convicted caught in a vicious cycle, but all those associated and dependent on that individual as well.
Prisons, many for-profit, are still here to stay even if they function more as facilities of punishment over rehabilitation. They are also a major force behind the justification of gerrymandering certain districts with black and brown bodies (who are unable to vote) counted juxtaposed to predominantly white communities. This reality is chilling especially as it results in all too similar a situation as the Three-Fifths Compromise over 200 years ago.
This content is not for the faint of heart, but Michelle Alexander truly does a great job of detailing how policy and court decisions directly and indirectly impact Americans on a national, societal level. She is also good at making historical connections, while still emphasizing how each system is innately unique—slavery, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration—each a completely different animal. However, if you aren’t afraid to look the beast in the eye, then I implore you to read this book.