Brewer and Heitzeg’s article “The Racialization of Crime and Punishment” (2008) focuses on the era of color-blind racism that we have entered into. Racism is no longer explicitly codified into law, but these colorblind policies have reproduced the same effects as these former policies had on Black Americans. Using the theories of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Brewer and Heitzeg demonstrate how our criminal justice system continues to be a legacy of plantations, Slave Codes, and lynchings.
They begin their article by providing the current reality of our criminal justice system. For every 100,000 Americans, 699 of them are in prison (Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2004). Of our prison population, an overwhelming majority are poor and people of color, specifically Black Americans. Using more recent statistics, Black Americans make up only 13% of the American population, but 38% of our prison population (Prison Policy Initiative 2022). This gross overrepresentation is directly connected to the overpolicing of Black communities. Brewer and Heitzeg also shed light on the collateral consequences that accompany the expansion of criminal and mass incarceration laws. Many states still disenfranchise felons–stripping them of the right to participate in American democracy. Additionally, former felons are permanently barred from accessing public assistance such as TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing. These collateral consequences create a cycle of incarceration. As incarcerated citizens are released from prison, the circumstances of their release are the same ones that will facilitate their reentry into prison.
Brewer and Heitzeg then go into the historical details that we are familiar with. Drawing on Angela Davis’ Are Prisons Obsolete?, they demonstrate how our prison system is rooted in the horrors of slavery and the peonage system that followed the abolishment of slavery. Following the civil rights movement, colorblind practices replaced the explicitly racial-coded laws. And the criminal justice system presented a convenient institution to continue the oppression and imprisonment of Black Americans. Rather than talk about race, public discourse surrounded issues of “crime, criminals, gangs, and drug-infested neighborhoods.”
Black activists warned of the dangerous connections between race, crime, and law. The Black Panther Party drafted the 10 Point Program that detailed the connection between capitalism, the Black community, and the criminal justice system. This was also an issue that would be debated in the courts. The most significant of these cases was McCleskey v. Kemp (1987). In this case, McCleskey argued that the death penalty in Georgia was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause. Using statistics from the Baldus study, McCleskey demonstrated that Black defendants were most likely to be sentenced to the death penalty when their victims were White. The courts did not disagree with the statistics, but concerns were raised about how the equal protection clause would apply to other structural inequalities if they agreed with McCleskey’s claims. The courts denied McCleskey’s claims. The case would effectively close off any possibility of using the courts to remedy structural inequalities.
Brewer and Heitzeg end their article by providing their steps towards social justice. They argue that we cannot longer rely on “civil justice or macro-level remedies alone” (Brewer and Heitzeg 2008). They believe justice to be born of grassroot efforts and at the microlevel. Citing Davis, they identify three critical dimensions to the abolition movement: public policy, community organizing, and academic research. They end by noting that the issue of racialized crime has broader implications in the context of the law and the global economy in neoliberal capitalism. And that to achieve justice, these small coalitions tackling these different institutions must somehow come together.
Cheryl, this is a very in-depth summary of the article “The Racialization of Crime and Punishment,” you pointed out many crucial details that emboldened the authors’ argument. One important takeaway that I got from this reading was the description of how the PIC has evolved into a “self-perpetual machine.” Although it may be the longest run-on sentence I’ve ever seen, the middle paragraph on page 637 eloquently describes the components that keep this complex in motion. Brewer and Heitzeg highlight that this complex consists of profit incentives in media and private prisons that drive perceived public benefits, leading to politicians adopting policies that reinforce this system. One element of this complex that I believe is under-discussed in the readings this semester is the “continued media profits from exaggerated crime reporting,” as the authors put it. In my opinion, this lies at the very root of the issue, as over-reporting of crimes fundamentally shapes public perception of Black Americans and allows the public to justify or brush off intense crime bills that disproportionately affect the black community. Media outlets have historically overreported black-on-white crimes to get more eyeballs, which activates fear and implicit biases within their viewers. Although the authors suggest that “Hegemonic media coverage and misrepresentations about the reality of crime and criminal justice must be countered by multiple voices,” this is difficult and widely unrealistic. Media outlets will continue to do what is in their best financial interest. Thus, I believe the best means of fixing this is through mandatory education on media and implicit bias in secondary schools. Once individuals reach an age where they can understand their innate biases, they can learn about how media preys upon them and seeks to benefit financially. If Americans can see past the crime narratives constructed by news outlets, they will be far less susceptible to believing that serious crime laws are just. Thus, we will achieve a more educated and conscious citizenry, and politicians cannot push these bills without fear of being removed from power. In effect, this should break the cycle of the prison industrial complex.
First, I wanted to tell you that this is a very good summary of the most important points from the reading “The Racialization of Crime and Punishment”, highlighting controversial issues of great importance. Specifically, the point that stands out the most to me from this reading is that ex-offenders are permanently barred from accessing public assistance such as TANF, Medicaid, food stamps and public housing. These are such basic and necessary things to reintegrate back into society but it seems that the American system does not live up to its premise of rehabilitating offenders and deterring crime so that they can reintegrate back into society as citizens who bring productivity to the system. On the contrary, this demonstrates once again that the American prison system aims to punish people who commit crimes even if it means subjecting them to inhumane conditions during their stay and causing them to have no access to any basic services or career opportunities after their release from prison. What I fail to understand is this institutional contradiction in which something is established and the opposite is pursued as it is obstructing the very path of social evolution.
On the other hand, it is argued in the reading that we can no longer rely solely on “civil justice or macro-level remedies” that justice must come from grassroots and micro-level efforts. After all the readings we have been reading throughout the course we are aware that discrimination cannot be dealt with on an individual basis since society is not responsible for what happens because this discrimination is intrinsic to the American system and institutions that make it possible for it to endure and to be maintained since its inception.