The New Jim Crow Essay On Legalized Discrimination

Legalized Discrimination is Contributing to Mass Incarceration

Mass incarceration has been an issue for decades, with no clear solution in sight. One major turning point in the development of mass incarceration, based on reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, is the idea of legalized discrimination. Alexander said, “What is painfully obvious when one steps back from individual cases and specific policies is that the system of mass incarceration operated with stunning efficiency to sweep people of color off the streets, lock them in cages, and then release them into an inferior second-class status” (pg. 100). This idea of legalized discrimination allows police officers to intentionally target black individuals because of prejudices

The first phase is roundup. During this phase, vast numbers of individuals are swept into the criminal justice system by the police, by conducting drug operations primarily in poor communities of color. As long as they are given “consent,” the police are able to stop, interrogate, and search anyone they want for a drug investigation. There are no checks to make sure police officers are not using their discretion in a discriminatory manner; therefore, racial biases are granted free reign. Because the police are allowed to use race as a factor when selecting whom to stop and search, it is guaranteed that those who are swept into the system are primarily black and brown (Alexander, pg. 180). The second phase is formal control. The beginning of this phase is indicated by conviction. Once an individual is arrested, they are generally denied meaningful legal representation and are pressured to plead guilty whether they are or not. While these individuals are under formal control, virtually every aspect of their life is regulated and monitored by the system and any form of resistance or disobedience is subject to punishment. This control can last a lifetime, even for those convicted of extremely minor, nonviolent offenses; however, most of those swept into the system are eventually released. Once

United States case, Whren argued that granting police officers with such a broad discretion to investigate anyone for drug crimes created a high risk of police exercising their discretion in a racially discriminatory manner. There is no requirement that any evidence of drug activity actually be present before launching a drug investigation. Because there is no requirement of evidence, police officers make judgements based on who seems like a drug criminal and influenced by racial stereotypes and bias. Whren also argued that failing to prohibit the police from stopping individuals for drug investigations unless there was an actual reason to believe the individual was committing, or had committed, a drug crime was unreasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment, and would expose black individuals to a high risk of discriminatory stops and searches. In response, the Court rejected their claim and ruled that claims of racial bias could not be brought under the Fourteenth Amendment. This made it impossible to challenge racial bias in the criminal justice system under the Fourteenth Amendment and has barred litigation of these claims under federal civil rights laws as well (Alexander, pg.