The issue of mass incarceration sparked conversation about racial disparities within the prison system. Following the abolishment of Jim Crow, legal racial segregation in the United States appeared dead. According to civil rights advocate, Michelle Alexander this is not the case; racial segregation appears dead, but mass incarceration perpetuates a racial caste system that preserves this outdated practice. In Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, she points to the cause, enforcement, and victims of this system, but her arguments lack the depth to stand against counterarguments.
Primarily, Alexander links mass incarceration’s cause of the War on Drugs. Her secondary cause for this phenomenon appears after this war begins; many defendants cannot obtain “meaningful legal representation” (Alexander 17), a claim which widely goes undisputed. Meanwhile, the argument that “convictions for drug offenses —not violent crime—are the single most important cause of the prison boom in the United States” (Alexander 102), a repetitive argument in her book, sparks controversy. Scholars, such as Pfaff, believe that writers distort the role of drug convictions due to focusing on only …show more content…
At first, this argument makes relative sense, “violent crime rates have fluctuated over the years and bear little relationship to incarceration rates—which have soared during the past three decades regardless of whether violent crime was going up or down” (Alexander 101). Even while violent crime rates decline, incarceration rates climb; these two variables should have a dependent correlation, but it appears they do not. However, in response to violent crime, legislators placed longer sentences for less severe crimes to prevent more violent crime in the future (Forman 48). While it may be compelling to simply accept that the War on Drugs caused the prison population spike, it did not; violent crime contributed