Racial Disparity in Our Prison Sentencing System - Bhoomi Shah

Before I start, I want to tell you all a true story that haunts me to this very day. It’s 2013, and an Indian man is working behind the counter at a local gas station here in Lexington, Kentucky. During one of his night shifts, a young White teen enters the gas station perturbed and irritated. The Indian man goes to greet him, only to be confronted with a gun to his face. “Give me all your money!” the teen demands. The man fearing his life complies and bends down to open the cash register. Before he is able to take the money out, a gunshot goes off. In the span of five minutes, a man lost his life, a family lost their world, and my dad lost a good friend. The teen was seen smiling as he entered the courtroom, displaying no remorse for his victim. He was given a life sentence for his heinous crime. Now here is another story, in January 2000 Tyrone  Taylor, a 41-year-old African American, was caught selling $20 worth of Crack Cocaine. He was convicted on the non-violent charge of distributing drugs; however, it being his third non-violent offense, the prosecutor indicted Taylor citing the state’s mandatory “three strikes” law which required that he be sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. To any reasonable individual, the disparity between the two sentences can be seen from miles away. In what world does the selling of $60 worth of Crack equal the taking of a priceless life? Racism has not disappeared in the American government. If anything, it has only been redirected into our justice system through racially charged sentencing policies, such as the “three strikes” law, which unjustly and disproportionately target the African American community, hindering their social and economic growth.

Racial disparity in our prison sentencing system has been present since the late 1980s. In 1986, Congress enacted the AntiDrug Abuse Act that created a significant imbalance in the amount of Crack versus cocaine powder required to trigger certain mandatory minimum sentences. Though both substances were different forms of the same drug, it took only five grams of Crack to steal a person’s liberty compared to five hundred grams of powder cocaine. The policy was really a ploy by the United States government to gain authority and control over African Americans as they were the primary users of Crack. Their frequent arrests stereotyped Blacks in society as nefarious and corrupt “druggies” who needed to be disciplined for public safety.  According to the American Civil Liberties Union, by 2004 Blacks served virtually as much time in prison for nonviolent offenses as whites did for violent offenses. Does that remind you of anything? Today, although African Americans constitute only 13 percent of the US population, they make up nearly 65.4 percent of prisoners serving Life without Parole for nonviolent offenses according to the ACLU. Fathers, mothers, brothers, and daughters are being unjustly sentenced for seemingly innocuous crimes, many accepting their fates without the proper money or resources necessary to defend themselves. Why may this be? Well, prosecutors may play a huge role in this overrepresentation of African Americans in our prisons. Over the years, researchers have discovered racial disparities in prosecutors’ exercise of sentence-enhancing directives such as three strikes or mandatory minimum laws.  These laws take discretion away from the judges and many times mandate punishments more severe and longer than the crime. Unfortunately, African Americans are the ones who suffer the most as a result of these policies, with a 2014 study conducted by the University of Michigan Law School finding that African Americans were 75% more likely to be charged with a mandatory minimum sentence compared to a White American.

This injustice should not be ignored. The frequent and overextended mass incarceration of African Americans is geographically concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods of America. With already fragile economies, the imprisonment of their primary breadwinners weakens communities’ ability to withstand economic and social hardship. The real damage, however, starts at the family level.  An ethnographic study of male incarceration in the District of Columbia found that families of inmates not only lost income and assistance with childcare but also had to bear expenses supporting their incarcerated family member. Children of incarcerated felons have it the worst and often end up in foster care, suffering from serious psychological consequences from depression to guilt and anger.

To rub salt into the wound, inmates once released from prison suffer great setbacks when it comes to finding employment. When they come back they typically lack the education and social skills needed to compete for a job, and the stigma surrounding criminal conviction only makes employers extra wary of hiring them.

Without proper income or stable family life, previously convicted individuals have greater chances of ending up in prison again. African American offenders, in particular, have the highest recidivism rates in America at 81% returning to the slammer within five years of being released.

Tough on crime doesn’t always translate to smart on crime. As we’ve seen, African Americans endure the most due to our prejudiced sentencing system, and though it's not in out of our capacity to rally against the very laws that trap many in this endless circle of incarceration, we must do something to at least ease inmates’ reintegration into society. Prisons focus on punishment but not rehabilitation. And maybe that’s where the issue lies. Education, vocational, and drug rehabilitation programs have proven over the years to decrease the likelihood that inmates will re-offend. In the state of Minnesota, a job-training program for ex-convicts was so effective that prisoners were 17% less likely to be sent back to jail. Though it's not as easy as simply slapping defendants with a number and calling it a day, rehabilitation programs allow ex-convicts to learn how to rebuild their lives and contribute positively to society. Where we can help is by volunteering at these rehabilitation centers. Many rehabilitation programs allow volunteers age eighteen and up to provide assistance teaching to inmates and ex-convicts a variety of elective skills such as effective communication. This opportunity not only provides us with the ability to feel connected to our community but also know that we are making a difference by providing many who have been unfairly confined the courage to go out and take back their lives.

Many will argue these programs, though effective, are way too expensive to establish. However, the benefits of these programs greatly out way the costs. The idea is simple, with fewer people in prison, correctional facilities need less money to operate, thus requiring less money from taxpayers. And this development isn’t just a theory. It has been proven time and time again. Going back to Minnesota’s work release program it was found that the program saved the state $1.25 million dollars due to the decrease in the prison population. With such effectiveness in not only decreasing the cost of holding inmates but also curtailing recidivism rates, it would be very unwise to ignore rehabilitation programs potential in our community.

In the end, it's clear that the passing of the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 did not completely expunge racial prejudice in our government. However, that doesn’t need to mean that we can’t take steps to effectively reduce it in our community. The economic and social hardships that African Americans must unjustly face as a consequence of our skewed prison sentencing system is intolerable and we should not just ignorantly stand by it. Some, of course, may never receive our help as they are forced to rot the rest of their life away in prison. I’d like to end this speech with the words of Tyrone Tyler,“I’m free on the inside. I may be locked up but I’m free.”