Robert S. Marcus [ ]1

United States Criminal Justice System: Correcting Corruption

According to a recent study by the U.S. Census: African Americans make up a

whopping 43% of our total prison population. One of every twenty-Cive African

American males is in jail. And more African Americans are incarcerated in the U.S.

than the total prison populations in India, Argentina, Canada, Lebanon, Japan,

Germany, Finland, Israel and England combined (Moore 1).

These alarming statistics raise a very important question: Is the United Stated

criminal justice system racist?

In her book, The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander makes a very legitimate

and assertive argument in response to this question. She criticizes our corrupt penal

system, claiming that it has subjected our societyespecially African American

malesto mass incarceration, which she describes as a new racial caste system as

stunningly comprehensive and repressive as the one that came to be known simply

as Jim Crow (Alexander 18).

Consequently, she believes that this racial caste system actively oppresses

ethnic minorities by placing them in a more vulnerable position where theyre much

more likely to be targeted and arrested by police.

Alexander raises a very valid point. Although race issues have improved

considerably in the last Cifty years, it would be purely ignorant to believe that we

have entirely overcome them. With that being said, its only logical to consider the

possibility of racism, consequently, infecting various facets of our criminal justice

Robert S. Marcus [ ]2

system. Sowhy doesnt the law deny law enforcers the ability to impose such

bigotry?

Unfortunately, it actually does the complete opposite. By law, police ofCicers

are granted decision-making power that allows them to decide if they want to

pursue police procedure or simply let someone off with a warning, otherwise

referred to as police discretion (Hirby 1). By application, cops are able to decide

(oftentimes independently) on the best way to deal with a given crime based on a

variety of factors and observations.

For example, if a police ofCicer pulls over two separate drivers for driving

twenty miles per hour over the speed limit; according to the law, the ofCicer should

issue a speeding ticket to each of the drivers. However, by using his or her discretion,

the ofCicer might sympathize with one of the drivers for some particular reason, let

him off with a warning, and then issue a speeding ticket to the other driver who

committed the exact same offense.

Who knows why the ofCicer decided to enforce the law on only one of the

drivers and not the other. Perhaps the ofCicer was racist and the driver was black;

sexist and the driver was a woman; or homophobic and the driver was gay. Although

the ofCicer cannot legally consider any of these factors when making a discretionary

decision, how could anyone prove otherwise? Of course he wouldnt admit that his

reasoning was discriminatory.

Herein lies one of the main problems of our criminal justice system: the

police have too much autonomy. Laws should not be situational. Law enforcement

Robert S. Marcus [ ]3

should not be subjective. Two people should not face different consequences for the

same crime.

So, returning to the central question at hand, could our criminal justice

system really be racist?

It may very well be. Perhaps police ofCicers truly are abusing their power and

treating African Americans unfairly. Perhaps police discretion is just a way for law

enforcers to disguise and justify their racist behaviors. As disappointing as it sounds

perhaps we really do resemble a racial caste system.

But what if it isnt? Maybe this is just another case of unwarranted race

cards. Maybe African American males legitimately commit the most crimes and

thats why they're arrested at such a high rate.

With our current system, its awfully hard to tell. The only way to know for

sure is to make some changes. We need to make laws absolute, punishments

deCinite, and authorities dependable.

Police ofCicers should be enforcers of the law, not deciders of the law. If youre

found with illegal drugs, you must be arrested; pulled over for speeding, you must be

given a ticket; caught stealing, you must be charged appropriately. Every single

crime must be associated with a speciCic and guaranteed line of actionallowing for

absolutely no discrepancy between identical offenses. By doing so, we could

eliminate the possibility of any injustice within a law enforcers course of action.

For this to work, however, a few revisions must be made to the laws that are

currently in place and enforceable. First, we must narrow the scope and streamline

Robert S. Marcus [ ]4

the interpretation of many of these laws. If they are all to be enforced

unconditionally, we must make sure that they're all clearly understood and do not

leave room for interpretation. In addition, many of these laws should be divided into

several more speciCic sub-laws to make sure that theoretically identical crimes are

actually identical, and therefore deserve the same predetermined punishment.

Second, we must get rid of all unnecessary laws, or in other words, laws for

minor crimes that are not of notable harm or danger to others. By doing so, wed

dramatically decrease processing costs, depopulate jails, and ensure that only real

criminals are being arrested. As Michelle Alexander points out, "All people make

mistakes. All of us are sinners. All of us are criminals. All of us violate the law at

some point in our lives" (Alexander 215). Therefore, if we are to create a system

where the law is undeniably the law, we must leave room for people to make

mistakes and be human. In turn, we can focus on the real criminals in the most

objective and unbiased way possible.

After implementing this system, if statistics still show that African American

males are being arrested disproportionally; well, then African American males are

simply committing a disproportionate number of crimes. There is no room for

debate in this situation and thus, no room for controversy.

The important obstacle in this reform is not what to change, however. Its

very clear what needs to be changed. The problem is how. How do wethe victims

of this corrupt systemoverpower the system itself?

Robert S. Marcus [ ]5

In The Communist Manifesto, German philosopher Karl Marx discusses the

eventual destruction of the dominant class of his time, the bourgeois, and

subsequent rise of the wage-workers, or the proletariat class. Although his ideals are

Communistic in nature, the issues at hand are very similar to ours and his plan of

action offers us an extremely valuable guide for the development of ours.

So, for the sake of my comparison, the bourgeois class is parallel to the racism

within our society (the driving force of these issues), while the proletariat class is

parallel to the victims and opponents of todays corrupt penal system. Because, just

as the growth of the bourgeois caused the decay of the proletariats condition; the

more prominent racial tensions are in todays society, the more victimized and

defenseless we are to it.

Marx explains that as the weaker party endures this exploitation over an

extended period, the vigor and passion of their revolution will slowly (yet Ciercely)

build up until it becomes massive enough for them to triumph over the stronger

party: "what the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers.

Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable" (Marx 94).

So, in order to initiate a reversal in our relationship with racism, we must

come together as one passionate, uniCied, and determined force.

But, to achieve this, wed have to become genuinely colorblind to each others

ethnic, cultural, and individual differenceswhich would prove itself as quite the

feat. Marx acknowledges that before the proletariat can progress, they must abolish

capitalism, or private property; so, for us, we must abolish racism and prejudice all

together, which would destroy many of our issues on its own.

Robert S. Marcus [ ]6

Once we have ofCicially defeated these racial tensions; well have a much more

uniCied society, more objective and impartial law enforcers, and therefore, less

targeting and victimizing. From there, we could then implement the revised system

that we discussed earlier and (ideally) have an effective criminal justice system that

we could actually agree with.

Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that the real problem with America is

actually racism.

Not government. Not law enforcement. Not crime. Not the law.

Although there are certainly a number of changes that can be made to

improve many aspects of our society, including our criminal justice system, none of

those changes can be effectively implemented until we Cix the bigger problem facing

us.

But its frightening how unrealistic that seems.

Robert S. Marcus [ ]7

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of

Colorblindness. 2011. Print.

Hirby, J. "Police Discretion Definition." The Law Dictionary. Law Dictionary. Web. 12

May 2015.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Samuel Moore, and David McLellan. The Communist

Manifesto. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Print.

Moore, Antonio. "The Black Male Incarceration Problem Is Real and It's Catastrophic."

Editorial. Huffington Post. Ed. Arriana Huffington. 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 May

2015.