Doublespeak Lives On In the Criminal Justice System (Rhetorical Analysis)

When discussing race or other sensitive topics, it is important to weigh one’s words carefully. Michelle Alexander not only weighs her words in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, but she also looks at how language is used within the criminal justice system in ways that harm people of color. Language appears, along with prosecutors and judges, as a character in this important book.

Coded language is a tool used by those in the criminal justice system that allows racism to flourish. Alexander shows how words like “crack cocaine” and “crime” are used racially to suggest African-Americans (105). The use of this coded language has allowed many cases that are rooted in racism to go unseen and unchallenged. Alexander quotes Jerome Miller, former executive director of the National Center for Institutions and Alternatives. Miller says, “There are certain code words that allow you never to have to say ‘race,’ but everybody knows that’s what you mean and ‘crime’ is one of those. . . . So when we talk about locking up more and more people, what we’re really talking about is locking up more and more black men” (qtd. in Alexander 105). The ellipses are used to create a sort of cause and effect relationship between the statements before and after the ellipses. The first part connects the word “crime” with African-American men, and Alexander shows how they are incarcerated at much higher rates than white men. Although evidence says that African-Americans do not use or sell drugs more than other races, 93 percent of those convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine are black (Alexander 112). The second part of Mitchell’s quote shows the effect of this use of the word “crime, which is the high number of convictions, long sentences, loss of jobs and family life, and other harmful effects.

Alexander also speaks to the sense of “doublespeak” that is used when referring to the kind of policing that leads to these convictions (131). This “doublespeak” is exemplified by an attitude that says “we do not racial-profile; we just stop people based on race” (131). This use of opposites helps Alexander point out hypocrisy both in policing and in the courts. Similar to intense patrols of African-American neighborhoods, jurors can be weeded out and dismissed based on race without ever using that word. Alexander shows how “prosecutors almost never fail to successfully craft acceptable race-neutral explanations to justify striking black jurors” (121). The clothing they wear, poverty, educational level, and other terms may signify racial motives. This exclusion of black jurors makes it unfair for black defendants because they may not have a jury of their peers.

As stated in the preface, this book was written for people who do not fully understand or appreciate the scale of the injustice described in the book. This may be because they have never been a black defendant facing a judge or jury and a long prison sentence. Or perhaps the reader has never been in such a severe unfortunate circumstance. In Chapter 3, “The Color of Justice,” the opening passage heavily uses the “you” voice. This makes the reader feel more connected to the argument that the author is making. This is an efficient way to draw the reader in, grab their attention, and instead of making it just a study, it humanizes the problem. “You are also now branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps,” Alexander writes (97). This grips the reader and makes the problem real, all too real for the 2 million people incarcerated in the United States, a country that we call home that has the highest rate of incarceration now in the world (6).