Michelle Alexander is an American writer who is known for her deep knowledge in the sphere of law as she works as a civil rights advocate. She has been interested in the issue of racial discrimination and justice for many years already. Her book “The New Jim Crow” is writing that discusses this very topic and its connection with mass incarceration. The author believes that it can be one of the new systems used to control society and affect African Americans negatively even though it seems to make the USA safer for the representatives of the general public.
Alexander (2010) argues that the number of African Americans who are controlled by the criminal justice system becomes higher with time and it exceeds the number of European Americans who are in the same condition. To prove this point of view, she resorts to the information regarding slavery, which reveals that in the middle of the 19th century there were fewer enslaved African Americans than today those who are connected with crimes. The author states that even though all people seem to have the same rights and the US government insists on the initiatives targeted at the spread of diversity and equality, those African Americans who are claimed to be felons face prejudice when dealing with almost all aspects of life, including education, employment, and voting. Thus, Alexander (2010) insists on the fact that the civil rights laws of the 1960s turn out to be ineffective today when being applied to people of color. She goes back to Jim Crow segregation and compares it with the contemporary situation, claiming that they have much in common.
In her book, the author claims that mass incarceration, as well as slavery, maintains a racial caste system, which presupposes the existence of a racial group that holds the subordinate position because of legislation peculiarities and habits that are peculiar to the particular society. Alexander (2010) explains that the caste systems that existed before the abolition of slavery did not change after the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. Even though the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act introduced particular alterations that should have been advantageous for African Americans, they have only redesigned the racial caste system.
To support her argument, the author resorts to the events from the past, analyzing them, and adding personal analysis. For example, she states that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 presupposed different punishments for African Americans and European Americans even though this information was not vivid. She claims that the punishment meant for those who were accused of crimes connected with crack was more severe than the one for those who were associated with powder cocaine. Such discrepancy turned into a problem as at that time the representatives of the general public and the criminal system believed crack to be a drug used by the colored people while cocaine was associated with whites. Even though this argument seems to be rather biased, Alexander (2010) managed to add a lot of authoritative information that proves her belief. She introduced quotations and particular facts that revealed the real situation. In addition to that, she provided some examples such as the story told by Judge Stanley Marshall about a mother who was convicted of “possession” of crack. It is also critical to mention that the conclusions made by the author based on this information were not far from reality, as Kurtzleben (2010) supports this point of view.
The professional underlines that in the 20th century and today “the possession of crack can carry the same sentence as the possession of a quantity of cocaine that is 100 times larger” so that “a minimum sentence of 10 years for amounts of crack over 50 grams, versus 5 kilograms of cocaine” (para. 3). What is more, Kurtzleben (2010) adds some data obtained from the US Sentencing Commission, according to which almost 80% of crack offenders who were incarcerated in 2009 were African Americans compared to only 10% of European Americans. Therefore, Alexander’s (2010) argument regarding inequality and discrimination is supported and seems to be true to life. This concession makes the author’s words sound more crucial.
The author shares her ideas further and states that the influences of mass incarceration discussed further are extremely negative especially for the African American population. She pays readers attention to the fact that civil penalties make these people deprived of general necessities connected with housing and education. In particular, Alexander (2010) supports her argument stating that colored people who return to normal life after being incarcerated have no opportunity to live in public housing or obtain student loans. She says that “a criminal freed from prison has scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a freed slave or a black person living ‘free’ in Mississippi at the height of Jim Crow” (Alexander, 2010, p. 271). Even though this claim can be considered hyperbole, the information provided by the author proves it to be at least partially true. Even if a reader can disagree with her words that Americans have a permission to hate those who were incarcerated, they cannot ignore particular examples and historical information, which proves that the approach selected by Alexander (2010) is rather effective.
Finally, the author motivates her readers to establish a grass-roots movement. She believes that it can be rather advantageous on the way to the destruction of the mass incarceration system. She makes her initial argument even more critical saying that “if the movement that emerges to end mass incarceration does not meaningfully address the racial divisions and resentments that gave rise to mass incarceration, and if it fails to cultivate an ethic of genuine care, compassion and concern for every human being […] a new system of racialized social control will emerge” (Alexander, 2010, p. 481). In this way, Alexander makes the readers believe that the issue she discusses is the most significant current and that it requires immediate action.
All in all, it can be claimed that in her book Alexander (2010) managed to prove her argument of mass incarceration to be a tool to control society. It has negative influences on all Americans, but not only African Americans, as the data revealed in the writing and pointed out by NAACP (n.d.) proves that the number of imprisoned people increased with time. Moreover, it can be concluded that mass incarceration makes people more prejudiced and spreads adverse attitudes towards these individuals making the population crueler and less sympathetic because they tend to hate all offenders without considerations.
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
Kurtzleben, D. (2010). Data show racial disparity in crack sentencing. Web.
NAACP. (n.d.). Criminal justice sheet. Web.