An Anarchist Theory of Criminal Justice Coy McKinney May 2012 Contents Overviewofcriminaljusticesystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Theproblem—theillusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Causesforthediscriminatoryeffectsofthecriminaljusticesystem . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Anewwayforward—arestorativeapproachtojustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2 Thispaperisacritiqueofhowthestate,thelegalsystem,andthecriminaljusticesystemfunc- tioninAmericansociety,andcallsforananarchistapproachtohowsocietyshouldbeorganized thatwillremovetheoppressiveframeworkswecurrentlyliveunder. Tosupportmyarguments,Iwillfirstprovideanoverviewofhowthecriminaljusticesystem works.FromthereIwillofferananalysisonwhythecriminaljusticesystemisflawed,andthe raciallydiscriminatoryeffectithashadonsociety.Iwillthendiscusswhythedisproportionate number of minorities found in prison and impoverished in this country is directly tied to the contemporary ruling interests that were preserved by the U.S. Constitution. Showing that the systemisinherentlydiscriminatory,Iproposeanalternativemethodforviewingsocietythrough anarchism. I will spend time debunking myths regarding anarchism and explaining why it is a viable ideology. In the end, I will propose a restorative justice approach to criminal justice that requiresneitherthestatenorthelegalsystem. Overview of criminal justice system Intheory,thefunctionofthelegalsystem,andthestateistoprovideastructurethatcreates anenvironmentforsocietythatprotectsindividualandcollectivefreedom.Theintentionofthe legalsystemthen,istoprovideanobjectivesetofrulesforgoverningconductandmaintaining orderinsociety.Inordertocoverallpotentialconflicts,thelawisdividedintotwoforms:(1)civil law,whicharerulesandregulationsthatdecidetransactionsandgrievancesbetweenindividuals; and (2) criminal law, which are rules concerned with actions deemed dangerous or harmful to societyasawhole,andareprosecutedbythestate. Relevanttothispaper,thecriminaljusticesystemisthemethodbywhichsocietydealswith individuals who violate criminal laws. It is the means for society to “enforce the standards of conductnecessarytoprotectindividualsandthecommunity.”1Thissystemiscomposedofthree parts: (1) police enforcement of the law; (2) adjudication of potential violations; and (3) punish- ment/rehabilitationforcriminalacts. The state authorizes police officers to enforce the law and maintain order. This permission allowsthepolicetoarrestindividuals,andusedeadlyforcewhenthecircumstancespermit.Since policeofficersareallowedtousetheirdiscretionindeterminingwhentherehasbeenaviolation ofthelaw,andwhentousedeadlyforce,theyaretrainedtobecapableofassessingthesituations theyfindthemselvesin,andactingaccordingly. As a check on the power given to police officers, state prosecutors are responsible for deter- mining whether the charges have substance, and if the individual’s case should go to trial. In the words of Michelle Alexander, the prosecutor has the most power of any other criminal jus- tice official, and is the person that “holds the key to the jailhouse door.”2 This adds a special responsibilityforprosecutors,accordingtoChiefJudge,IsaacChristiancy: The prosecuting officer represents the public interest, which can never be promoted by the conviction of the innocent. His object like that of the court should be simply justice; and he has no right to sacrifice this to any pride of professional success. And however strong may be his belief of the prisoner’s guilt, he must remember that though unfair means may happen to 1President’sCommissiononLawEnforcementandAdministrationofJustice,TheChallengeofCrimeinaFree Society,7,(1967). 2MichelleAlexander,TheNewJimCrow,86,(2010). 3 resultindoingjusticetotheprisonerintheparticularcaseyetjusticesoattainedisunjustand dangeroustothewholecommunity.3 If a prosecutor determines there is enough evidence for trial, the individual will be charged withcommittingacrime. At trial, the adversarial system is used. This means the prosecutor will present evidence, in addition to arguments, explaining why the defendant is guilty of the alleged crime(s), and the defendant’s attorney,who is either appointed by the state or chosen independently,will do the same,exceptexplainingwhythedefendantisnotguilty.Allthisispresentedbeforeajudge,and sometimesajury,whoareregardedasobjectivethirdparties,andareresponsiblefordetermining theguiltofthedefendant. If an individual is convicted of a crime, they enter into the custody of the correctional au- thorities.Anexampleofthestatedrolecorrectionalauthoritiesandprisonsplayinthecriminal justice system is exemplified by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which “protects society by con- fining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that aresafe,humane,cost-efficient,andappropriatelysecure,andthatprovideworkandotherself- improvementopportunitiestoassistoffendersinbecominglaw-abidingcitizens.”4 Prisonerscan receive medical, educational, religious, and career assistance to achieve the stated edification goals.Prisonerscanbereleasedbeforefulfillingtheirrequiredtimeinprisonbybeingplacedon parole, which means they are released back into society with certain restrictions on their free- dom. Ultimately, the objective of the correctional authorities and prisons is to protect society fromcriminals,whilealsoprovidingrehabilitationtothemsothattheyleaveprisonbetterthan whentheyentered. Initsentirety,thecriminaljusticesystemisstructuredtodeliverjusticeinafairmannerthat upholdstheidealsAmericaholdsforitself. The problem — the illusion Despite the stated intent of the criminal justice system, there are clear, systemic problems withhowitfunctionsthatnotonlycallitsexistenceintoquestion,butalsothelegalsystemthat produceditaswell.Atthecoreoftheproblemisthefactthat“justice”isdeterminedbythestate, andnottheindividualsinvolved.Worseningthisisthefactthattheoriginofthestatewasbuilt on discriminatory ideals. This has resulted in a criminal justice system that does not serve the people,butworkstomaintainoppressiveanddiscriminatory,governmentalauthority. Thevictimsandallegedoffendershavelittle,tono,sayinthedeterminationofjusticethrough- out the criminal process. The state replaces the actual victim as the injured party for trial, and seeks justice based on its own standards. Defendants are advised to remain silent, and to allow their attorney to do most of the speaking for them. In describing this phenomenon, Alexandra Natapoff,writes: The United States’s criminal justice system is shaped by a fundamental absence: Criminal defendants rarely speak. From the first Miranda warnings through trial until sentencing, defendants are constantly encouraged to be quiet and to let their 3Hurdv.People,25Mich.405(Mich.1872). 4FederalBureauofPrisons,(lastvisitedApr.26,2012). 4 lawyersdothetalking.Andmostdo.Overninety-fivepercentnevergototrial,only half of those who do testify, and some defendants do not even speak at their own sentencings. As a result, in millions of criminal cases often involving hours of ver- bal negotiations and dozens of pages of transcripts, the typical defendant may say almostnothingtoanyonebuthisorherownattorney.5 […] Defendantsilencealsohassystemicimplicationsfortheintegrityofthejusticepro- cess.Inourdemocracy,individualspeechhashistoricallybeenseenasanantidoteto governmental overreaching. Criminal defendant speech is perhaps the quintessen- tialexampleoftheindividualdefendinghisorherlifeandlibertyagainstthestate. Yet silent defendants rarely express themselves directly to the government official deciding their fate, be it judge or prosecutor, and are often punished more harshly whentheydo.Thejusticesystemassumesthatconversationsbetweencounseland clients, and counsel’s own speech on behalf of clients, fulfill the personal needs of defendants as well as systemic requirements that defendants be “heard.” Yet most defensecounselareoverworked,appointedcounselwithinsufficienttimetospend communicatingwiththeirclientsorfullyexploringtheirclients’personalstories.6 Together, the practice of “representation” does not form an honest quest for justice, since it silencestheonlyindividualsthataretrulycapableofdeterminingit. AlthoughAmerica’slegalsystemhasdeterminedthatjusticeismosteffectivelyadministered through the adversarial system, the reality of the process shows that this is a contrived conclu- sion.Theadversarialsystemreliesonprosecutorsto“dojustice,”andfordefenseattorneystobe “zealousadvocates”fortheirclients,relyingonbothsidestopresenttheirstrongestarguments, sothatathird-partytrieroffactcanmakethebestdecision.7 Thissystemreliesonjusticebeing equatedwithvictory,whichencouragesbothsidestobeasuncooperativeaspossiblewitheach other. Inlivinguptotheirrolesaszealousadvocatesfortheirclients,andencouragedbytheadver- sarial system, defense attorneys can employ a number of tactics to win cases, that do not help thetrieroffactmakeaninformeddecision.Inhisessayoutliningtheproblemswiththesetactics, labeled“aggressivedefense,”WilliamH.Simon,providesafewtroublesomeexamples: Defenselawyerssometimeshaveopportunitiestodrawoutanddelaycases,forin- stance, by deliberately arranging their schedules to require repeated continuances. Thiscanhavetheadvantageofexhaustingprosecutionwitnessesanderodingtheir memories. Defenselawyersaresometimesaskedtopresentperjuredtestimonybydefendants. They sometimes find they can benefit their clients by impeaching the testimony of prosecution witnesses they know to be truthful. And they sometimes can gain ad- vantage by arguing to the jury that the evidence supports factual inferences they knowtobeuntrue.[…] 5AlexandraNatapoff,Speechless:TheSilencingofCriminalDefendants,80N.Y.U.L.Rev.1449(2005). 6Natapoff,supranote5,at1451. 7ModelRulesofProf’lConductR.3.8(a)(2008);Id.atPreamble,Scope,Terminology(2008). 5 Lawyers occasionally find it advantageous to disclose or threaten to disclose infor- mationthattheyknowdoesnotcontributetoinformeddeterminationonthemerits becausesuchdisclosureinjurestheprosecutionorwitnesses.8 Whilethesetacticsarepermissible,eachexemplifieshowtheadversarialsystempromotesthe goalsoftheindividualdefendantoverthatofoveralljustice. Prosecutors are also encouraged by the adversarial system to give precedence to winning rather than obtaining actual justice. As a representative of the state, prosecutors must be con- sciousofhowthepublicperceivestheirdecisions.Toensurethis,almosteverywhereinAmerica, (exceptAlaska,Connecticut,NewJersey,andtheDistrictofColumbia)thejobofchiefprosecu- toris determined byan election.9 Tosecureelection, orreelection, prosecutors oftencampaign on how “tough” they are on crime, something that is usually demonstrated by the number of convictions a prosecutor has made. This equates convictions with justice, which consequently, creates an imbalance in the pursuit of justice, as it implies justice lies on the side of the pros- ecutor, by default, and not the defendant. In arguing that judges should not be elected, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “A campaign promise to ‘be tough on crime,’ or to ‘enforce the death penalty,’isevidenceofbiasthatshoulddisqualifya[judicial]candidatefromsittingincriminal cases.”10 The same argument can be made for prosecutors as well. Thus, in order to show pro- ficiency, prosecutors are often encouraged to convict individuals. However, the argument that convictionsequaljusticeisafallacy.Ifthisweretrue,therateofrecidivismwouldbedecreasing, yetitisincreasing.Accordingtoa2006reportreleasedbythebipartisanCommissiononSafety andAbuseinAmerica’sPrisons,withinthreeyearsoftheirrelease,67%offormerprisonersare rearrestedand52%arere-incarcerated.11 Assisting the “convictions = justice” belief are economic incentives that permit individuals and corporations to profit from the number of prisoners a jail has. This is commonly referred toasthe“privateprison-industrialcomplex.”Between1999and2010,theuseofprivateprisons increasedby40%atthestatelevel,andby784%inthefederalprisonsystem.12Thisrisecorrelates with an increase in revenues as well: Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group, thetwolargestprivateprisoncompanies,madeover$2.9billioncombinedin2010.13 Explaining how these profits have been spent, the Justice Policy Institute states, “[a]s revenues of private prisoncompanieshavegrownoverthepastdecade,thecompanieshavehadmoreresourceswith which to build political power, and they have used this power to promote policies that lead to higherratesofincarceration.”14 Thus,acycleexistswhereprivateprisonfacilitiesinfluencethe criminaljusticesystemthroughpoliticalandeconomicmeans,encouragingtheflawedbeliefthat convictionsequaljustice. 8WilliamH.Simon,TheEthicsofCriminalDefense,91Mich.L.Rev.1703,1704–5(1993). 9RicSimmons,ElectionofLocalProsecutors,OhioStateUniversity,MoritzSchoolofLaw,(lastvisitedApr.27, 2012). 10JohnPaulStevens,Assoc.Justice,U.S.SupremeCourt,OpeningAssemblyAddress,AmericanBarAssociation AnnualMeeting,Orlando,Florida(Aug.3,1996),in12St.John’sJ.LegalComment.21,30–31(1996)(discussingneed toimprovequalityofjudgesandespousingbeliefthatjudgesshouldnotbeelected). 11CommissionOnSafetyandAbuseinAmerica’sPrisons,ConfrontingConfinement,106,(2006). 12CodyMason,TooGoodToBeTrue:PrivatePrisonsInAmerica,1,(2012). 13JusticePolicyInstitute,GamingTheSystem:HowThePoliticalStrategiesofPrivatePrisonsPromoteIneffective IncarcerationPolicies,12(2011). 14Id.at2. 6 The confluence of economic and political motives for obtaining more convictions has had tremendously negative effects on society, and has helped usher in a period of “mass incarcera- tion.”AccordingtotheInternationalCentreforPrisonStudies,theUnitedStateshasthehighest incarceration rate per 100,000 people of the national population, than any other country in the world.15ANewYorkTimesarticledescribedthesituationsuccinctly,“[t]heUnitedStateshasless than5percentoftheworld’spopulation.Butithasalmostaquarteroftheworld’sprisoners.”16 Furthermore, this period of mass incarceration has illuminated the racist character of Amer- ica’s legal system. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of December 31, 2010, state andfederalcorrectionalauthoritieshadjurisdictionover1,612,395prisoners,whileatotalof7.1 millionpeoplewereunderthesupervisionofadultcorrectionalauthorities.17 Ofthe1.6million prisoners, 588,000 identified as Black, and 345,900 identified as Hispanic, representing 36% and 21%, respectively, of the prison population.18 This is alarming since, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, Blacks make up 12.6% of the American population, and Hispanics constitute another 16.3%ofthepopulation.19 Makingtheimbalanceclearer,theestimatednumberofinmatesheld in custody in local, state, or federal prisons per 100,000 U.S. citizens, for Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites, respectively, is the following: 4,607; 1,908; and 769.20 This means Blacks are nearly 6 timesaslikelyasWhitestobeinprison.PaulButlerwrites: Imagineacountryinwhichmorethanhalfoftheyoungmalecitizens[referringto Blacks]areunderthesupervisionofthecriminaljusticesystem,eitherawaitingtrial, in prison, or on probation or parole. Imagine a country in which two-thirds of the mencananticipatebeingarrestedbeforetheyreachagethirty.Imagineacountryin whichtherearemoreyoungmeninprisonthanincollege.21 The racial disparity is also present in death penalty cases. According to the Equal Justice Ini- tiative, “[m]ore than half of the over 3300 people on death row nationwide are people of color; nearly 42% are African American. Prominent researchers have demonstrated that a defendant is more likely to get the death penalty if the victim is white than if the victim is black.”22 And accordingtoAmnestyInternational,a1990reportbythenon-partisanU.S.GeneralAccounting Officefound,“apatternofevidenceindicatingracialdisparitiesinthecharging,sentencing,and impositionofthedeathpenalty.”23 Asaresult,theeffectofcriminallaws,theirenforcementand prosecution,hasdisproportionatelyplacedmoreBlacksandHispanicsinjailthaninthenation’s history. 15InternationalCentreForPrisonStudies,Entireworld–PrisonPopulationRatesper100,000oftheNational Population,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 16AdamLiptak,U.S.PrisonPopulationDwarfsThatofOtherNations,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 17BureauofJusticeStatistics,PrisonersIn2010,(lastvistedApr.27,2012);BureauofJusticeStatistics,Correc- tionalPopulationsInTheUnitedStates,2010,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 18BureauofJusticeStatistics,supranote17(firstcite),atAppendix,Table12. 19KarenR.Humes,NicholasA.Jones,RobertoR.Ramirez,OverviewofRaceandHispanicOrigin:2010,TableI (2011). 20BureauofJusticeStatistics,supranote17(secondcite),atAppendixTable3. 21PaulButler,RaciallyBasedJuryNullification:BlackPowerintheCriminalJusticeSystem,105YaleL.J.677,690–1 (1995). 22EqualJusticeInitiative,RacialBias,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 23AmnestyInternational,DeathPenaltyandRace,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 7 Causes for the discriminatory effects of the criminal justice system The disproportionate number of racial minorities involved in America’s criminal justice sys- temisnotbychance,butintent,asitisaconsequenceoftheracistandclassistintereststheU.S. constitution was designed to protect. Starting in the mid-15th century, after the violent acquisi- tion of land belonging to long-established indigenous communities, Americans and Europeans engagedinthecrueltransportationofover11millionAfricansforover450years.24 TheAfrican slavetradehelpedbuildAmericaintooneofthemostpowerfulcountriesintheworld,butalso createdapatriarchalsocietythatreifiedracialdiscriminationbythecreationofracialidentities. These racial identities were used by the rich, White elites to create artificial divisions amongst themassestopitthemagainsteachother,andnottheirrulers.ThePopulistleaderfromGeorgia, TomWatson,incallingforracialunity,said: You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are madetohateeachotherbecauseuponthathatredisrestedthekeystoneofthearch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggarsboth.25 Therich,whitementhathadobtainedeconomicandpoliticalpowerthroughoutthecolonies utilizedtheopportunitytheConstitutionalConventionprovidedtoensuretheirpowerwasmain- tained with the formation of the new country. Writing about the findings of fellow historian CharlesA.Beard,HowardZinnwrites: Beard applied this general idea [that the rich must either control the government directly,orcontrolthelawsbywhichthegovernmentoperates]totheConstitution, bystudyingtheeconomicbackgroundsandpoliticalideasofthefifty-fivemenwho gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found that a ma- jority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, inland,slaves,manufacturing,orshipping,thathalfofthemhadmoneyloanedout atinterest,andthat40ofthe55heldgovernmentbonds,accordingtotherecordsof theTreasuryDepartment. Thus Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturing neededprotectivetariffs;themoneylenderswantedtostoptheuseofpapermoney to pay off debts, the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to payoffthosebonds. Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves,indenturedservants,women,menwithoutproperty.26 24BritishBroadcastingCorporation,Quickguide:TheSlaveTrade,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 25HowardZinn,APeople’sHistoryoftheUnitedStates:1492-Present,291(2003). 26Id.at90–1. 8 Summarizingtheconstitutionthen,Zinnwrites: The Constitution, then, illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it servestheinterestsofawealthyelite,butalsodoesenoughforsmallpropertyown- ers,formiddle-incomemechanicsandfarmers,tobuildabroadbaseofsupport.The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law–all made palatable by the fanfare ofpatriotismandunity.27 Thosewithpowerandinfluence,whohadbenefitedfromtheuseofslavesasameansofachiev- ingeconomicandpoliticalpower,helpedingrainslaveryintotheirrespectivelegalsystemsand cultures.Thus,representatives,especiallyfromSouthernstates,hadastronginterestinpreserv- ing slavery, and would not have agreed to join the union without a constitutional protection forit.ThisprotectionisexhibitedbytheoriginalsectionsoftheConstitutionlocatedat:Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 (recognizing the “three-fifths compromise”); Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 (permitting the continuance of the slave trade until 1808); and Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 (protectionfortheFugitiveSlaveAct). While legislation to abolish the slave trade became law in 1808, some state governments en- actedBlackCodes,orlawstoregulatetheinstitutionofslaveryandtoplacefurtherrestrictions on the liberty of Blacks. The Supreme Court did nothing to abolish slavery, or the racist laws, in fact, it thwarted an attempt by some Northern states to limit slavery, through the Missouri Compromise,bynationalizingthepracticewithitsdecisioninDredScottv.Sanford.28 Theissue of slavery ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War, and the eventual passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments in 1865, 1868, and 1870, respectively (prohibiting slavery exceptaspunishmentforcommittingacrime,guaranteeingequalprotectionforallcitizens,and prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on race, respectively). However, the intent in maintaining a racially divided society persisted, as state governmentsimplemented “Jim Crow” lawsthatsegregatedBlackstoaseparate,andsecond-classcitizenship.TheSupremeCourtagain didnothingtorepealtheselawsuntilitsdecisioninBrownv.BoardofEducationofTopekaover 80yearslaterin1954.29 TheCivilRightsMovementfollowedinthe1960sand1970sandhelped remove many of the overt forms of racial discrimination the legal system and federal govern- ment had maintained, but regardless of these changes, legally sanctioned racial discrimination has endured. Now, it operates in covert and institutionalized ways that can be shown through the impact of governmentalpolicy.The government’s“Waron Drugs” has become the most re- cent, post-Civil Rights Movement policy to continue the racial discrimination and exploitation ofminoritiesinAmerica.Whiletheterm“WaronDrugs”wasinitiallyusedbyPresidentRichard Nixon, it was under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan when it became heavily enforced. The purported purpose of the “war” was to reduce the illegal drug trade, by implementing policies thatdiscouragedtheproduction,distribution,andconsumptionofillegaldrugs.Thisincludedim- posing restrictive penalties on an individual’s liberties for committing drug-related crimes (i.e., losingtherighttovote,denialofpublicbenefits),andharshersentencingguidelines(i.e.,“three strikeslaws,”mandatoryminimums). 27Zinn,supranote25,at99. 28Scottv.Sandford</em>,60U.S.393(U.S.1857). 29Brownv.Bd.ofEduc.,347U.S.483(U.S.1954). 9 Althoughtheappearanceoftheeffortappearsraciallyneutral,itsenforcementhashadaclear racialbias.Termingtheinitiativethe“NewJimCrow,”MichelleAlexanderexplainsthat,“[a]sof 2004,moreAfricanAmericanmenweredisenfranchised(duetofelondisenfranchisementlaws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified …”30 Illustrating the racial bias of this,Alexandercontinues: This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, even thoughstudiesconsistentlyshowthatpeopleofallcolorsuseandsellillegaldrugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, some studies indicate that white youth are sig- nificantlymorelikelytoengageinillegaldrugdealingthanblackyouth.Anynotion thatdruguseamongAfricanAmericansismoresevereordangerousisbeliedbythe data.Whiteyouth,forexample,haveaboutthreetimesthenumberofdrug-related visitstotheemergencyroomastheirAfricanAmericancounterparts.31 Anotherindicatoroftheracialbiaswithintheinitiativecanbeshownthroughthedifference insentencingguidelines.In1986,theU.S.Congresspassedlawsthatcreateda100:1sentencing disparityforthepossessionortraffickingofcrack,incomparisontothepenaltiesfortrafficking powder cocaine, which exhibits discrimination since Blacks are more likely to use crack than powdercocaine,asubstancethatispredominantlyusedbyWhites.32 Compoundingthisfurther aretherevelationsjournalistGaryWebbuncoveredonhowtheNicaraguanrebelgroup,theCon- tras,whowereknownfordrugtrafficking,wereassistedbytheU.S.governmentindistributing crack cocaine in Los Angeles, California to fund weapons purchases.33 Thus, the undisguised racistlawsandpoliciesthattargetedBlacksaftertheformationoftheConstitutionhavecontin- ued,justinalessovertfashion. Thehistoryoftheplightofotherminoritiesunderoppressivelawsandgovernmentalpolicies should not go unmentioned. Latinos have been targeted through anti-immigrant laws, termed “JuanCrow,”thathavehadsimilar,butdifferenteffectsonLatinosasJimCrowdidonBlacks.34 Native Americans are also disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system since theyareincarceratedatarate38%higherthanthenationalpercapitarate.35Muslims,especially aftertheSeptember11th events,havebeensubjectedtoracialprofilingandsurveillancebylocal and federal authorities, similar to how the Japanese, and Asians generally, were persecuted be- foreandduringWorldWarII.Furthermore,thegovernment’spracticeofdiscriminatingagainst groupsbasedonracialidentitiesisexemplifiedbyitsuseofdataobtainedbytheU.S.Censusand thepoliciesithascreated.36 EncapsulatingthehistoryofAmerica’slegalsystemwiththeimpactithashadonsociety,the conclusioncanbedrawnthatithassuccessfullyachievedtheobjectivesitscreatorsintended:a 30MichelleAlexander,TheAgeofObamaAsARacialNightmare,(lastvisitedApr.27,2012). 31Alexander,supranote30. 32JimAbrams,CongressPassesBillToReduceDisparityInCrack,PowderCocaineSentencing,(lastvisitedApr. 27,2012). 33SeeGaryWebb,DarkAlliance:TheCIA,theContras,andtheCrackCocaineExplosion,SevenStoriesPress;2nd edition(1999). 34KarlaMariMcKanders,SustainingTieredPersonhood:JimCrowandAnti-ImmigrantLaws,26,Harv.J.on Racial&EthnicJust.,163(2010). 35U.S.CommissionOnCivilRights,AQuietCrisis,FederalFundingAndUnmetNeedsInIndianCountry,68(2003). 36SeeThereseBeaudreault,TheRaceCategoriesOnTheU.S.Census:RepresentationsofFalseConsciousness, (lastvisitedMay6,2012). 10