World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Race and the War on Drugs

Article Id: WHEBN0026076635
Reproduction Date:

Title: Race and the War on Drugs  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Race and crime in the United States
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Race and the War on Drugs

Several authors have claimed that there are racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, imprisonment, rehabilitation programs, and other aspects of the War on Drugs.

Arrests / Imprisonment

In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which, amongst other things, created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for crack vs. powder cocaine possession, which some people consider to be a racist law which discriminates against minorities,[1][2][3] who are more likely to use crack than powder cocaine. People convicted in federal court of possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine will receive a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal prison. On the other hand, possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same sentence.[1][2] Some other authors, however, have pointed out that the Congressional Black Caucus backed the law, which they say implies that the law cannot be racist.[4][5][6]

Crime statistics show that in 1999 in the United States blacks were far more likely to be targeted by law enforcement for drug crimes, and received much stiffer penalties and sentences than whites.[7] A 2013 study by the American Civil Liberties Union determined that a black person in the United States was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though both races have similar rates of marijuana use.[8] Iowa had the highest racial disparity of the fifty states.[9] Black people in Iowa were arrested for marijuana possession at a rate 8.4 times higher than white people.[9]

In 1998 there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-Americans, who only comprised 13% of regular drug users, made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.[1] Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than white men,[10] even though they only comprise 13% of regular drug users.[1]

In the late 1990s, black and white women had similar levels of drug use during pregnancy. In spite of this, black women were 10 times as likely as white women to be reported to a child welfare agency for prenatal drug use.[11][need quotation to verify][12]

Legal Standpoint

When sifting through the layers of policy concerning the “War on Drugs”, one can find racial disparities and obstacles facing those minorities on trial and during punishment. On the surface, de jure suggests that everyone has an equal opportunity in defending themselves from criminal accusations concerning drugs. However, careful scrutiny of judicial jargon along with assessment of limitations of marginalized groups suggests otherwise (de facto). The idea that minorities have to somehow “prove” that racial discrimination was being used during a search and seizure (United States v. Armstrong, 1996) and that the Equal Protection Law has been separated from the Fourth Amendment through successive court decisions leaves the accused at a disadvantage. This separation is open to police discretion and availability of such discretion has been created by court case. The idea that defendants had to show favorability of whites in “similarly situated” court cases was reinforced by the 2002 United States v. Bass decision in which the Sixth Circuit court’s decision to favor a death-eligible, black defendant was reversed; the man had provided data that suggested that the United States charges blacks with death-eligible offenses more than twice as often as it charges whites.The Supreme Court’s conclusion was that raw data does not say anything in particular of “similarly situated” defendants.[13] Moreover, there is the idea that those with tangential associations of the accused are not open to having sentence reductions as they don’t have other dealers to “rat out”; this generally leaves women at the disadvantage as they are usually found as holders of drugs without information (Coker,834).. Also, there is a noted racial disparity of those punished and rehabilitated. Professor Cathy Schnieder of International Service at American University notes that in 1989, African Americans, representing 12-15 percent of all drug use in the United States, made up 41 percent of all arrests. That is a noted increase from 38 percent in 1988. Whites were 47 percent of those in state-funded treatment centers and made up less than 10 percent of those committed to prison.[14]

African American Communities

The War on Drugs has incarcerated disproportionately high numbers of African-Americans. However, the damage has compounded beyond individuals and their families to affect African-American communities as a whole.

African-American children are over-represented in juvenile hall and family court cases, and as a result, they are removed from their families in droves, and placed in the federal system.[15] This is due to two reasons.

First, the high incarceration rate has not ignored families: mothers and fathers are incarcerated as well. This leads to a lack of a parental (mother or father incarcerated) figure to provide a good role model and stabilize a household. The impacts on their children are severe. African-American youths are becoming highly involved in gangs in order to generate income for their families lacking a primary breadwinner; with the War on Drugs having made the drug trade lucrative, it is a far more profitable for them to work for a dangerous drug gang than at a safe entry-level job.[16] The second-hand consequences of this are African-American youths dropping out of school, being tried for drug-related crime, and acquiring AIDS at disparate levels.[16]

Second, the high incarceration rate has led to the juvenile justice system and family courts to use race as a negative heuristic in trials, leading to a reinforcing effect: as more African-Americans are incarcerated, the more the heuristic is enforced in the eyes of the courts.[15] This contributes to yet higher imprisonment rates among African-American children, and tearing apart already damaged families.

The high imprisonment rate has also led the police to target African-American communities at disparately high levels of surveillance, invading privacy rights of individuals without probable cause, and ultimately breeding a distrust for police among African American communities.[17] High numbers of African American arrests and charges of possession show that although the majority of drug users in the United States are white, African Americans are the largest group being targeted as the root of the problem.[17] A distrust of the police in African American communities seems like a logical feeling. Harboring these emotions can lead to a lack of will to contact the police in case of an emergency by members of African American communities, ultimately leaving many people unprotected. Disproportionate arrests in African American communities for drug-related offenses has not only spread fear but also perpetuated a deep distrust for government and what some call racist drug enforcement policy.

Women of Color

The War on Drugs also plays a negative role in the lives of women of color. In 1997, of women in state prisons for drug-related crimes, forty-four percent were Hispanic, thirty-nine percent were black, and twenty-three percent were white, quite different from the racial make up shown in percentages of the United States as a whole.[18] Statistics in England, Wales, and Canada are similar. Women of color who are implicated in drug crimes are “generally poor, uneducated, and unskilled; have impaired mental and physical health; are victims of physical and sexual abuse and mental cruelty; are single mothers with children; lack familial support; often have no prior convictions; and are convicted for a small quantity of drugs”.[18]

Additionally, these women typically have an economic attachment to, or fear of, male drug traffickers, creating a power paradigm that sometimes forces their involvement in drug-related crimes.[19] Though there are programs to help them, women of color are usually unable to take advantage of social welfare institutions in America due to regulations. For example, women’s access to methadone, which suppresses cravings for drugs such as heroin, is restricted by state clinics that set appointment times for women to receive their treatment. If they miss their appointment, (which is likely: drug-addicted women may not have access to transportation and lead chaotic lives), they are denied medical care critical to their recovery. Additionally, while women of color are offered jobs as a form of government support, these jobs often do not have childcare, rendering the job impractical for mothers, who cannot leave their children at home alone.[19]

Necropolitics and Feminicide on the US-Mexico Border

Beginning in 1993, news from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, began emerging of cases of feminicide around the city. The numbers increased during the following years, up to over 6,000 deaths, by 2006.[20] The cause of these deaths has been related to the city’s infamy as a haven of drug violence.[20]

In 1995, a feminist coalition known as La Coordinadora de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales en Pro de la Mujer (the coalition of nongovernmental organizations for women, hereafter “the coalition”), demanded that military and government leaders in the city take action to stop the feminicide.[20] Chihuaha governor Francisco Barrio at the time stated that the murders fell within the normal range for deaths of females of the city.[20] What he failed to acknowledge, something that was realized only years later, was that the deaths were due to an escalating war being fought by the increasingly powerful drug cartels.[20]

Barrio’s assertion rested on the city’s reputation as a working-class city of vice and cultural contamination, reflective of its proximity to a powerful northern neighbor with its loose sexual morals and military men looking for cheap sex and alcohol.[20] Unlike other cities in Mexico, Ciudad Juarez did not confine prostitution to certain districts, and so made it difficult to attribute the feminicide to drug cartels.[20] These women are forced into the sex trade to supplement their income and support their families.[20] The city repeatedly explained to families of girls how had gone missing that they probably led double lives, exactly to provide economical support for the family, and thus, there was no cause for concern.[20]

In reality, these women were suffering from the city’s necropolitics. The coalition argued the violence that threatened these “daughters” was a violence that threatened the very foundation of Mexican society. By 2001, the pressure from the coalition and other international groups was so intense that the government had no choice but to dedicate itself to acknowledging the true interpretations of the murders.[20] In 2006, after he was elected, Felipe Calderon deployed thousands of troops in Ciudad Juarez to wage war against the cartels.[20]

Unfortunately, the war on drugs was not contained to the cartels, because the narcos do not simply kill each other, but common civilians as well.[20] The fact that the Government of Mexico disregarded the issue for so long, as well as refusing to acknowledge the legitimate reasons of the feminicide show with what impunity government officials act, as well as the total lack of value that women are regarded with in the scope of the war on drugs.[20] These women in Mexico, and especially in the border cities such as Ciudad Juarez, are dispensable bodies to the cartels as well as to the government.

See also

References

Further reading

Books

  • The New Jim Crow (2010) by Michelle Alexander www.newjimcrow.com ISBN= 978-1595581037

Journal articles

Conference papers

News

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.