Running Head: Marijuana Conviction
Marijuana: Racial Disparity
Public Administration 575
May 13, 2017
This paper explores the effects of marijuana on African Americans in the United States and the differentials in arrest and conviction when paired against Caucasian Americans. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in the conviction rates and arrest rates between African Americans and Caucasian Americans. The research provided from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the American Civil Liberties Union will be detailed throughout the paper to help further explain the differentials. There has been an increased amount of arrest and convictions of African American and Caucasian Americans due to marijuana. In the year2015 alone, there was over a million arrest in the United States for marijuana violations. The paper will provide the overview of the academic literature concerning the problem of the relation of Caucasians and African Americans arrests and conviction for the marijuana-related offences.
The paper will provide a history of arrests and percentages among African Americans and Caucasian Americans and the possession of marijuana. The statistical information will be provided by using the arrests rates from peer reviewed scholarly articles, books, and academic sources. The paper will specifically target sources that show the differentials between African Americans and Caucasian Americans marijuana arrest rates in the United States.
My hypothesis is that African Americans are arrested and convicted for marijuana offences at a much higher rate than Caucasian Americans.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States and is used widespread among young people and older people. Marijuana refers to dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. (Grant, 2013) Marijuana has attributed to several arrest and convictions in the United States of America.
Marijuana in the United States has been a topic of discussion and has held a huge grip on the government on whether to allow marijuana in different states. In recent years, several states have passed laws that decriminalized marijuana, and a majority of Americans now support legalizing the drug. Yet between 2001 and 2010, there were over 8 million pot arrests in the U.S. What’s worse, the authorities making the arrests were targeting African Americans far more than Caucasian Americans. (Grant, 2013)
There has been a divide in arrest and conviction between African Americans and Caucasian Americans in the United States when it comes to marijuana violations. Due to the high marijuana arrest rates that have occurred in the past several years, it is difficult for people to understand the difference between the arrest and following treatment of African Americans and Caucasian Americans within the judicial system.[LP1] African Americans have been documented as a problem with law enforcement in general, the record is even more replete with examples of race-based profiling in the implementation of drug laws. This practice has led to selective arrests and prosecution for petty drug crimes, in turn resulting in the systematic incarceration of people of color in the criminal justice system (Alexandre[LP2] , 2013). The amount of African Americans in the criminal justice system with marijuana violations is high, and with a criminal past, African Americans are looked at by the police officers that have focused on low-income areas to arrest these individuals for marijuana (Bobo & Thompson, 2006).[LP3]
Conviction rates in the United States for Marijuana violations are a substance of marijuana arrests. African-Americans make up 12% of the nation’s drug users, but represent 34% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 45% of those in state prison for such offense as of 2015. (Whitaker, 2015). The police have used different tactics that have led to arrest of African Americans such as racially profiling African Americans, illegal stops made by police, and stop and frisk. Marijuana violations and offences have led to the rise of arrest and the conviction rates of African Americans due to the inconsistencies of the judicial system. It is hypothesized that the violations accrued from marijuana has attributed to African Americans being arrested and convicted at much higher rate Caucasian Americans.
Wegman (2014) finds that African Americans and Caucasian Americans use marijuana at comparable rates. Yet in all states but Hawaii, African American are more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana offenses. Marijuana violations have led to arrest and conviction rates of people in the United States. Levine (2013) finds that from 2001 to 2010, the police made more than 8.2 million marijuana arrests; almost nine in ten were for possession alone.[LP4] In 2011, there were more overall arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined in the United Sates. [LP5] There are rules and policies that prevent the use of marijuana in the various states in the United States (Farrelly et al., 1999). Between the years 2001-2010, the vast majority of counties arrest African American at a higher rate than Caucasian Americans, with some having a disparity of greater than ten to one. According to Levine (2013), taxpayers have shouldered the cost of arresting and incarcerating hundreds of thousands of people for the possession of marijuana, often in small quantities for personal use. Some national estimates put the annual cost of marijuana arrests above ten billion dollars, and low-level arrests for marijuana possession (Bouchard, 2005).[LP6]
The arrest rates for possession of marijuana for African Americans have been higher from the years 2001 through 2010. Levine (2013) discussed two enduring facts about marijuana use and arrests across the country were: Caucasian American people and African American people use marijuana equally, but the police do not arrest them equally. Over the last fifteen years, police departments in the United States made [LWP7] one million arrests for marijuana possession—an average of almost 700,000 arrests a year. In the United States, African Americans were arrested for marijuana possession at higher rates than Caucasians Americans in every state, city, and county —as FBI Uniform Crime Reports and state databases indisputably show. States with the largest racial disparities arrest African Americans at six times the rate of whites (Levine, 2013). The disparity among the convictions of African Americans and Caucasian Americans typically stem from the areas that the police deemed “high crime areas.” Levine (2013) states that police departments concentrate their patrols in certain neighborhoods that are mainly low- income areas that house both African Americans and Caucasians.
The drug war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color even though studies have consistently shown now for decades that contrary to popular belief, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than Caucasians, but by waging this drug war almost exclusively in poor communities of color, we’ve now created a vast new racial under-caste.(Whitaker, 2015). Police officers who patrol in middle and upper class areas typically do no1t search the vehicles and pockets of Caucasian American people. “Our nation’s prison population has more than quintupled, and this is due largely to the war on drugs and the ‘get tough’ movement. (Whitaker, 2015) The war on drugs have been a huge detriment to the communists who suffer from low poverty. Those areas have high police influence due to the high crime rates.
Marijuana Market Conditions
Bouchard states that the risks of arrest vary across various drug markets. In particular, marijuana selling offence rated as five times more serious than marijuana use offence (with a severity score 187 and 29 respectively) (Bouchard, 2005). The offenders choose cultivation of marijuana over the importation as a preferred source of supply. Cultivation is considered as an adaptation to the increasing risk of arrest and detention. The two categories of marijuana suppliers at risk are soil-based growers and hydroponic growers. There are twice as many soil-based growers than hydroponic ones. The prevalence of growers may be explained by the fact that most clients prefer to buy marijuana personally and directly from growers (Bouchard, 2007).
M. Taylor and G.R. Potter came to the conclusion that friendship and trust is an extremely important aspect of drug supply on the drug market. Friendship and trust may serve two purposes: firstly, they appear as a social supply management, and secondly, as an insurance against the risks of law problems. Drug suppliers avoid using violence due to the interests of business security and because of personal code of honor or morality. Suppliers usually recognize friendship ties and thus reduce the level of violence on the market to minimum (Taylor & Potter, 2013).
The authors state that current drug market is populated by individuals, who “drifted” into dealing from a friendship-based social supply market. The authors divide drug market (on the UK example) into four levels: importation, wholesale distribution, middle market, and retail-level dealing. The latter level is highly competitive rather than monopolized because of majority of independent dealers with no obligations to their suppliers. At this level, there is “a grey zone”, where the distinction between dealers and customers becomes blurred.
The most prevalent drug dealt among the respondents was premium herbal marijuana with weekly amounts in range of 126 g to 5 kg. The marijuana market is better structured and organized in comparison with others, because suppliers deliver drugs to the dealers on a fixed cycle. The chemical markets (MDMA, ketamine, LSD etc) appear more irregular and disorganized compared with the cannabis market. According to authors, this may reflect the fact that there are more users of cannabis than of the other drugs (Taylor & Potter, 2013).
The article of Adda et al. considers the effect of the government intervention in the marijuana market, particularly the depenalization of possession of the small quantities of marijuana (it is no longer lead to the arrest in UK), which leads to the slight increase of the marijuana consumption (about 2% in London), and as a result, to the increase of marijuana-related offences (Adda et al., 2014).
The Impacts on Marijuana Related Crime
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 had provided the policy of US officials to “create the America without drugs” and had included penalties against drug offence and support for the anti-drug education and preventive techniques. Later, it was changed to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.
Along with welfare assistance, the PRWORA has included the policies that were dedicated to prevent the criminal and drug problems of the American society. The drug offence in PRWORA was convicted to a lifetime prohibition on receiving assistance of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
TANF has provided assistance to the ethnic minorities and states that suffer of the economical disadvantage. Also, TANF has funded basic assistance to low-income families to eliminate the child poverty. The states regulate the policies that control the financial eligibility for TANF assistance.
The 1996 welfare reform maintains the necessity of drug testing for the TANF recipients and requires from the state to provide such tests. State policies often need for testing of only certain applicants and recipients. The policies also may vary: some of them require tests for the persons who was already convicted with drug offences, while others provide screening of drug abuse only when there is a reasonable suspicion that person uses drugs in current moment (McCarty et al., 2016).
A positive result of the TANF drug test shows that individual is ineligible for TANF welfare assistance, but some states’ laws allow individuals to retain eligibility in the case when they would agree to participate in drug treatment programs.
The 1996 welfare law has prohibited states from providing TANF assistance to the individuals who were convicted of felony for possession, use, or distribution of drugs, including the marijuana. However, states can modify the laws through the enacting the law, which requires the affirmative act by the governor and other officials.
Also, the 1996 welfare law has prohibited fugitives from TANF assistance. When a person avoids prosecution, custody, or imprisonment after the conviction or the parole sentence, such person is no longer eligible for the TANF assistance.
SNAP has provided benefits for low-income citizens, which may vary by the size, income, and expense. Most of the eligible families must meet an income test (monthly income must be below 130% of the federal poverty statistics). The most states don’t allow using drug tests on the SNAP recipients (Ibid.).
There are only two exceptions: when an assisted person has a felony drug conviction and state laws to modify the drug felony prohibition law. PRWORA banned states from providing SNAP to the convicted for the drug offence, unless the state will pass a legislative procedure that would change or eliminate a ban. Also, a SNAP participant may be excluded if there is a drug testing requirement in other programs in the states that may use such requirement (e.g. the state that disqualifies the individual from the TANF program, may also disqualify the person from the SNAP).
The federal government funds three directions of the housing assistance programs: the public housing, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and Section 8 project-based rental assistance, which will serve about 4 million low-income families. All of the assisted are subjects to federal substance activity restriction that directed to improve the safety of housing and to provide a benefit for the deserving applicants. Such restrictions require from applicants to be screened for drug and alcohol abuse. In the case when there is a certain drug use or past criminal activity, the individual may be denied with the assistance (Curtis et al., 2013).
The most frequent ban category of drug-related activities in the primary housing assistance is the illegal drug use, abuse, possession, distribution, and trafficking. In some cases, the housing assistance has an ability to consider individual circumstances of assisted when deciding whether to apply the prohibition on the resident’s household. The previous eviction ban is used in 85% of all cases (34 of 40 primary housing assistance programs). Most of them used bans of between 3 and 5 years, and one-half allowed the discretion in the length of the ban (McCarty et al., 2016).
A 6 to 10 year ban was forced by the 4 housing assistance cases, and 2 instituted lifetime bans. Majority of the programs mentioned bans for unspecified activity, which involved drugs.
Many housing assistance programs provide no concrete information about the process of gathering the evidence of the household’s drug abuse. The documents only provide the process of identification of applicants who abused substances based on the variety of tactics. Certain agencies use mandatory drug testing for the applicants, while others required to sign special forms that allow agency to contact with the third parties involved in household’s applicant life (police officers, social workers, etc).
Certain agencies have a policy of suspicion drug testing for all of the applicants. The positive results on those tests ban from the public housing, but the proposal for mandatory suspicionless drug testing was dropped by the opposition in government. The public housing programs are required to provide policies, which prohibit the admission of the households based on the next factors:
The household was determined as currently involved in the illegal use of the drug;
The household’s illegal use or abuse of the drug is determined by the reasonable cause and interferes with the health, safety, and right for peaceful enjoyment of the other residents;
Assisted household was evicted from the federal housing programs within last three years for drug-related offence and other criminal activity; the exception is the assisted has completed a drug rehabilitation program or the eviction doesn’t exist (the assisted is no longer lives in the household) (Ibid.).
Gould, Johnson, & Dunlap, (2008) identified discrimination as being complex;, any charges of bias in enforcement need to consider the possibility of differential involvement in offending by race/ethnicity. The focus of their research was the disparity of African Americans, among other races, held a higher percentage than any other race in the criminal justice system. Nguyen & Reuter (2012) showed that the racial disparity in drug arrests and typically found that a focus on outdoor drug activity and police perceptions is often the main reason for an overrepresentation of African Americans who are arrested. The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) disclosed the vast difference among both African Americans and whites convicted of marijuana possession. In 2010, the nationwide arrest rates for whites were 192 people convicted out of every 100,000 thousand people. Out of every 100,000 thousand African Americans there were 716 people convicted. The ACLU stated that, in the Midwest, African Americans are over four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In the South, African Americans are three times more likely to get arrested.
Ramchand (2006) suggested that African Americans are more likely to engage in risky purchasing behaviors, such as buying marijuana outdoors, from strangers, and away from their place of residence. Despite the county household income levels, the disparity in marijuana progression arrests exist and are greater in the middle income and more affluent counties. In the counties with the 15 highest median household incomes, which is about 85 thousand to 115 thousand, African Americans are two to eight more times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites (Edwards, 2013). Although the disparity of marijuana arrests is documented, there are mixed findings in regard to the increase in arrests of marijuana possession is consistent across all races (Schwartz, 2013). Out of all the States in the United States, Iowa has the greatest racial disparity in arrests out of all states. Black Iowans are 8.3 times more likely to be arrested, despite the fact that African-Americans make up just 3.1 percent of the population (Khorri, 2013). Atkinson (2013) states that between 2001 and 2010, there were more than seven million arrests for marijuana possession in the U.S.
In the research conducted by Beckett (2012), marijuana prohibition contributed to racial inequalities in the United States, because marijuana arrests are not evenly distributed across the population. Approximately 30 percent of those arrested for violating marijuana laws are African Americans, who pay the highest costs along with their families and communities (Beckett, 2012). African American communities have been subject to high levels of arrest and incarceration for drug offenses in the United States. A study conducted in 25 of the largest counties in California found that African Americans were arrested for marijuana possession at double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of Caucasian Americans; however, U.S. Government studies have consistently found that young African Americans use marijuana at lower rates than young Caucasian Americans (Levine, Gettman, & Siegel, 2010). For drug abuse violations in the United States, 45 percent of the states dealt with marijuana. African Americans were arrested on drug charges at rates that were 2.8 to 5.5 times as high as those of Caucasian American adults in every year from 1980 through 2007. About one in three of the more than 25.4 million adult drug arrestees during that period was African American. (Fellner, 2009).[LP8]
There is strong evidence that the African American people are more frequently arrested for marijuana use than Caucasians. It is can be seen as well as in the juvenile crime statistics, as in the adult crime statistics. The recent data on the juvenile involvement in the marijuana use shows the racial disparity between the Caucasian and African American youth. Williams et al. state that African American youths have higher marijuana use than Caucasians, but the gap between the two ethnic groups isn’t too wide: the initiation rates between African American and Caucasian at seventh grade equals 9.9% and 8.4%, and at 12th grade 59.6% and 55.2% respectively. However, the authors state that there is little difference in the factors, which lead to the marijuana use (Williams et al., 2007).
Fite et al. (2009) states that African American youth are up to 3 times more likely to be arrested than Caucasian youth. Among the risk factors that are prevalent among African Americans may be distinguished the following: problem behavior, attention deficit problems, conduct problems, oppositional deviant problems, affective problems, low anxiety, and interpersonal callousness. Among additional factors the authors distinguish family social-economic status, poor parent-child communication, physical punishment, peer delinquency, peer rejection, low academic achievement, and neighborhood problems (Fite et al., 2009).
Nguyen & Reuter maintain the view that marijuana possession arrests present the majority of drug arrests in Western nations (14,000,000 estimated arrests in US in 2008). The marijuana is the main drug that drives juveniles into the criminal behavior. The authors use the data from three resources: Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), and the Decennial Census to determine the probabilities of arrest for marijuana use between 1982 and 2008.
The UCR shows that the rates of juvenile Caucasians and African Americans were almost the same until 1991. Since then, the African American juvenile arrests increased at a greater rate than for juvenile Caucasians. Two rates slightly catch up with one another in 2002, and since then, African American rates have been rising again, while Caucasian rates have been remaining stable. The probabilities of arrest for juvenile offenders have risen since 1991.
However, the adult drug arrest statistics shows completely different picture. In 1991, the adult African Americans were arrested twice as often compared to Caucasians. In 2008, this statistics changed even more dramatically: African Americans were three times more likely to be arrested than Caucasians, while their rates of marijuana use remain practically identical (Nguyen & Reuter, 2012).
The probability of marijuana use for African Americans has risen from 1.5% (in 1991) to 3.5% (in 2008). For Caucasians, it has remained almost the same: 0.73% (in 1991) to 1.2% (in 2008). Nguyen & Reuter came to the conclusion that the race is an important factor in the arrest for possession of marijuana. Among the factors authors distinguish riskier conditions for African American people, such as tendency to buy marijuana outdoors, from strangers, and travels on the long distances. African American may be more vulnerable to arrests because of the high level of police presence in the neighborhoods with large ethnical minorities (Nguyen & Reuter, 2012).
Kautt & Spohn state that the racial disparity in sentences for drug offences has increased dramatically, and that the federal laws concerning drug offences disproportionally affect ethnical minorities. The Kautt & Spohn’s paper indicates that factors of drug use play a relatively insignificant role and that their effect has a little variation between Caucasian and African American offenders. But author came to the unexpected conclusion that there is no direct relationship between the sentence harshness and racial disparity. Quite different, the court intends to provide less severe sentences for African American defendants than for Caucasians in certain context. However, the race of the defendant has a strong influence on the sentencing outcomes under the mandatory minimums (Kautt & Spohn, 2002).
Eitle & Monahan found that urban disadvantage or social disorganization may explain the character of race-specific drug arrest rates. Among the important factors only one was found to be a statistically significant predictor of the African American drug arrest rate, which us the African American urban disadvantage. The authors predicted the direct relationship between the racial threat measures and the race-specific dependent variables; a significant predictor of drug arrest rates was the racial social-economic competition, and this measure was found to have an association with both Caucasian and African American drug arrest rates.
Also, the several police organizational factors have predicted the race-specific arrest rates of both Caucasians and African Americans (which include measures of complexity and control). The spatial and functional differentiation of the police was associated with drug arrest activity. The police departments with more formal rules show almost insignificant association between racial competition and African American drug arrest rate (Eitle & Monahan, 2009).
The relationship between racial disparity in the arrest rates was the strongest when the size of the police department force was relatively great (high number of police officers per 10,000 citizens). In the case of small number of police officers, there was no association with competition and arrest rates. The authors suggest that the police force size may be associated with the police discretion, since the officers in large departments may receive less direction and supervision (Ibid.).
The African American citizens appear to more likely experience law enforcement oppression in the case they are perceived by the police as being more dangerous and bearing more threat than Caucasians, which mirrors the racial prejudice that the African American race may present a threat in the whole. The relatively threatening African American population or neighborhoods, and police environment may produce a greater number of arrests of African American people.
There is a substantial amount of racial disparity in the American and prison and jail system. The overall rates of incarceration are all at records high, one in nine (11.7%) African American men between the ages of 25 and 29 is currently incarcerated in prison or in jail.[LP9]
In research conducted by Nguyen & Reuter (2012) they find that the incarceration rates and racial distributions were affected by resources devoted to policing and prosecution initiatives that emphasize large-scale drug arrests, as well as policing in communities of color, at the expense of drug treatment and diversion programs. The focus of their research the number of annual drug arrests, increased every year from 1980-2007. In the year 2006, there were a total of 1,382,783 arrests for marijuana possession.
Fellner (2009) discussed the rate of prison admission on drug charges for African Americans was 256.2 per 100,000 African Americans adult residents. For Caucasian Americans, the rate was 25.3 per 100,000 Caucasian American adults. Between 1986 and 2003, the rate of prison admission for African Americans on drug charges quintupled; the white rate did not quite triple (Fellner, Targeting Blacks, 2008). Since 2003, African Americans constituted 53.5 percent of all persons who entered prison because of a drug arrest. Among all African Americans who entered the prison system, almost two out of five (38.2 percent) were arrested for drug offenses, compared to one in four Caucasian Americans (25.4 percent). The imprisonment of African Americans in the criminal justice system compared to Caucasian Americans is 5.6, among the states the ratio ranges from a high of nearly 14 to one in Iowa to a low of less than two to one in Hawaii (Fellner, 2009). [LP10]
It appears that the racial disparity of African American and Caucasian [LWP11] Americans with the use of marijuana and the incarceration rates. African Americans get convicted of marijuana possession at higher rates than Caucasian [LWP12] Americans. Many of the statistics show the differences of both conviction rates and the amount of people who are in prison due to being either stopped or detained for marijuana. The study [LP13] shows that Caucasian Americans may use marijuana more than African Americans, but African Americans are convicted at a much higher rate (Fite et al., 2009). Taken as a whole, it appears that exposing the myths that African Americans are treated fairly, and the amount of incarceration rates that is given towards the race and also more doubling Caucasian Americans for marijuana, indicates that the government targets African Americans.
The impact of being arrested or convicted for marijuana related crimes are different among African Americans and Caucasian Americans. Among the differentials in possession or distribution, the impact on the lives of these individuals are different due to race. African American, who are arrested for possession of marijuana, have a label of a drug dealer.
Caution must be advised, though; Levine, Gettman, & Siegel (2010) and Mauer & King (2007) and Fellner, Targeting Blacks (2008) Fellner, Decades of Disparity, (2009) were based upon journal articles that provided information from the federal burea and the census.
There is a rising disproportion of Caucasian/African American prisoners in jails and prisons (African Americans constituted 43.3% of the incarcerated in state, federal, and local prisons, while represent only 13% of the total US population) (Bobo & Thompson, 2006). Caucasians represent only 35.7% of the male prisoner population, while 75% of the total male population in 2004. The African American incarceration rate rose between 1980 and 2000 in three times and is now over 8 times greater than for Caucasian whites. Such statistics may be the result of the “War on Drugs” policy.
Among the age of 30 to 34, about 60% of African Americans without a high school diploma had been imprisoned at some point. This is more than 3 times more than the conviction rate of the same age in 1979, prior to “War on Drugs” (Kitty, 1999).
The Race, Crime, and Public Opinion (RCPO) project interviewed large samples of African Americans in 2001 and 2002. 24% of African Americans stated that “crime, violence, and drugs” is the nation’s most important problem. The crime problem was critical for 57% of African Americans (compared to 40% of Caucasians). 89% of African Americans perceived the criminal justice system as biased against black people (compared to 38% of whites) (Bobo & Thompson, 2006).
The RCPO asked the next questions: “Are drug laws enforced fairly?” The affirmative answer concerning all of drug users was given by 33.7% of African Americans, while the opinion that drug laws are enforced unfairly against black communities was maintained by 66.3% of African Americans (Ibid.).
According to critical race theory, the racial privilege of Caucasian people and related oppression rooted in American history and hence the institutional racialisation is a normal feature of American culture. The theory states that civil rights reforms failed to establish racial equality.
Brewer states that aside of the biased criminal policies and practices there is a multiplicity of “invisible punishments”. That means the legislative techniques, which limits the political and economic opportunities of convicted felons and former prisoners. 48 states don’t allow former prisoners to vote, and 28 states ban persons on probation from voting.
About 40 million felons are disenfranchised (it’s about 2% of the nation’s population). 13% of African American males are disenfranchised (Brewer, 2008). Drug use, possession, or sales are the only offences aside of welfare fraud that may result in the prohibition on federal assistance programs (such as financial aid for education).
Brewer holds that legalized racial discrimination efforts to gain control of African Americans through the criminal justice system. Such practices gain popularity during the post-civil rights years as the racist paradigm. The current criminal justice system allows providing an old legally enforced racial disparity as African Americans get prosecuted and convicted. The racialization of criminal justice and the rise of American prison industrial complex are tied to the expansion of global economy, the decline of the industry and the rise of minimum wage sector in the United States (Brewer, 2008).
The prison complex is gaining the profits and political benefits (such as reduced unemployment rates, public safety, and criminal justice system agencies) and leading to the policies, which designed to ensure the perpetuity of the conviction rates for the criminal justice system. The African American people are perceived by the author as a central element of the prison industrial process. African Americans are less needed in the free labor market under the globalization conditions. This makes possible the exploitation of African American communities within legal conditions.