This article immediately brought me back to the days of Drugs and Society of last semester. Hartley examines the racist laws involving drugs from a different vantage point, but concludes the same things. I remember learning how possessing crack cocaine as opposed to cocaine differs in years in jail b y almost 5 times. That is ironic because the government placed crack in Los ANgeles in the 90s during the Contra turmoil. Blacks and minorities have access to crack, while white kids in the suburbs have access to cocaine. Just a coincidence?
The lawmakers and politicians are from these suburbs and their kids could be the ones purchasing the cocaine. Crack is a cheaper drug to make, distibute and it usually associatred with very low classes. Another coincidence? This article connects directly to that when talking about plea bargains and recuced sentences.
Hartley explains how Puerto Ricans and blacks were much less likely ot be offered deals than whites. They could ahve the exact same crime and yet go to jail for longer or pay more money in fees. Race sex and age play way too much of a part in the legal system and undoubtedly affects every outcome. Hartley insists that the perceptual shorthand plays intot his and can be viewed as a form of racism. The judges, prosecutors and jury all add to the legal system and its discrepancies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A coincidence? No, Sam, you're right, it's definitely not. The crack v. cocaine punishment discrepancy, or 1 v. 100 rule, is a the direct result of the power that is delegated within our hierarchal society. Those in power stay in power by controlling the lower, or dangerous, classes. As you said, crack is cheap, and is typically though of as a drug of choice by poor minorities (which isn't always the case), and therefore it's used by the upper classes within the legal system to create unjust, unfair punishments for one crime that is very similar to another.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, it's not really what's being done, but rather who's doing it that resulted in this biased, racist rule. I want to call it institutional racisms, but I'm not positive it quite fits the mold for that type of definition, but it clearly is a discriminatory law that subjugates a certain part of the population (in theory), and is continually maintained and upheld by the criminal justice system (though I suppose they recently made changes to the law in the past year, but not enough to fix the injustice.
Ahh, the days of Drugs & Society. I agree, it's not a coincidence. There's a reason the laws are harsher for crack than powder cocaine. It's for the exact reason that you stated-- the people who make these laws to show that they're "tough on drugs" don't want their kids and their friends' kids going to jail.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to drug laws in particular I think the intersection (race, class, gender, sexuality) plays a huge part in who gets cut what kind of deal.
I agree with you guys that it isn't a coincidence but something has to be said for the more damaging effects of crack cocaine. Shouldn't more dangerous drugs have harsher penalties for the ramifications they can have in our society? The drug laws are too drastically different but from the research I've done and the things I've seen it seems like crack is a much more devastating drug for the individual, family and society.
ReplyDelete