The New Jim Crow Case Study

African American still suffer from discrimination. Michelle Alexander believes that we do.Michelle Alexander is a civil rights lawyer, advocate, professor, and scholar. She was born in 1967, she graduated from Vanderbilt University and Stanford Law School. Alexander was the director of the Racial Justice Project for the ACLU in Northern California. While there, she began to look more deeply into issues of criminal justice reform and started a campaign against racial profiling. She worked at private law firms specializing in plaintiff-side class-action lawsuits regarding racial and gender discrimination. She then later became a writer. In The New Jim Crow she exployed the prejustice that black people face in America. She noted that while slavery
She highlighted that the Jim Crow was over turn in the mid twinty centries thanks to the civil rights movements. Alexander argue that dispite this, new law enfforment has continued in differnt forms.The war on drugs in the main corpate.Blaack men was imprisionment because of the non viloence drug offense. After being convicted, rights will be taken away from them. They will lose privage to vote and it will be hard to find a job because of background checks. Convicts are enligable for student loans, food stamps, welfare, public housing and from family and community support structure. They have high rates of homelessness and sucide. Ater a felony, they just gives up on them. This discrimination is hard to see dur to the prejustice and overlly racis laws. Alexander introduce a new focus in the debate of rasical
Alexander discusses how the rules work. The Supreme Court has helped the drug war through rulings that give law enforcement almost complete carte blanche in searches and seizures.The stop-and-frisk rule allows police to stop and frisk anybody if they have a “reasonable” suspicion of dangerous and criminal activity. In regard to pretext stops, the police can stop anyone driving for almost anything and then search for illegal drugs. This did not convince the Court, and they continued to indicate there were and are no limitations on the War on Drugs.There is a thin line between police acting lawfully and unlawfully in taking