This final part of the Chapter 2 review will only cover the last few pages. I will only cite two quotes from the book, but this is mostly to give my feedback on what I believe justice means and where Alexander and I differ on the topic. Now mind you, I am no legal scholar, lawyer, or authority on the law in any professional sense. I am just a guy who can read at – at least – a fifth grade level (do not be intimidated) and has a basic understanding on human nature. I cannot answer all the hard questions like, “what is love?” or, “when the school bus driver gets off the bus, who closes the door?” But I think I can answer, “what is justice?”

Justice is a principle in which people receive what they deserve. There are many different modes or types of justice, social justice not among the ones taken seriously until recently. To me, there are three main types of justice inherent and important to the American criminal justice system: (1) Deterrent, (2) Restorative, and (3) Retributive.

The first one is self-explanatory and is very effective. As I mentioned in the previous review, when you are about to engage in criminal activity, there is a risk assessment that goes through your mind (or at least should). The question, “is this worth it?” should be something every potential criminal should ask themselves before committing a crime. For an example of deterrence, home defense and self-defense laws not only allow for people to protect themselves and their property, but also acts as a deterrent to potential criminals when they know they could be met with deadly force if they commit theft. This deterrence is not directly a part of the criminal justice system, since it is a constitutional right to protect yourself and your property, but the right itself is the inherent deterrent. Personally, and this is not a view common among all Americans, I believe that if you are willing to steal something as small and irrelevant as a tic-tac from my home, I should be able to shoot you dead with no legal repercussions. Yes, that may sound extreme to some (and it is not a fate I wish upon anyone), but you must admit, you tell that to your kids when they are growing up and they are unlikely to ever steal.

The second type of justice is the only type of justice the modern-day Left believes in, unless of course, they label you a Nazi. Restorative, or rehabilitative, justice is the preferred method of justice for some because it seems more compassionate. Our current culture has an obsession with oppression narratives, so it makes sense to take the criminal’s side when you believe every criminal took up a life of crime because of some major trauma in their life. Is there a place for rehabilitation in our criminal justice system? Of course. America started out as a land of second chances, but is also a nation of laws, not men (per John Adams). We seem to have forgotten this, or at least some progressive judges have. Considering the life circumstances of the offender often supersedes the justice owed to the offended. As Thomas Sowell said in his book titled The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and I will paraphrase since I lent the book to someone who has not given it back, a man convicted of murder should not receive a lesser sentence because he had a life full of unfortunate events out of his control because the person he murdered (assumably) had nothing to do with his upbringing. Making concessions to the violator as a form of rehabilitative justice is injustice to the violated. Areas where restorative justice works is in nonviolent, small crimes where second chances are warranted. These ‘second chances’ and the benchmark for them should be determined by individual states. This does not mean we should send social workers instead of police out to crimes in progress, like some progressives suggest we do, but reducing the punishment for first time offenders is something each state should strongly consider. And as Alexander mentioned (per my previous reviews), there should be less federal involvement in the criminal justice systems and laws of each state (outside of protecting constitutional rights).

The third and most often forgotten form of justice is retributive. This form of justice is most often linked to the death penalty where it is most clearly demonstrated. Because of this, retributive justice is always seen as the “bad form of justice.” Is it compassionate to kill someone for committing a capital crime? Is it compassionate to lock someone in a cage for the rest of their life with no chance of getting out? Well, I guess it depends on whose eyes you are looking through – the criminal’s, or the victim’s. I enjoy the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles’s take on retributive justice compared to rehabilitative justice. Knowles says the following in episode 389 of The Michael Knowles Show: “We don’t want actually punish people because they committed a crime. We want to punish them to rehabilitate them. We want to punish them to deter other crime. No. The most important one is the retribution because of the justice. Because of the injustice that they’ve committed, the civil authority has to exact justice from the criminal. The reason this is the most important one is because, look, we could all use a little rehabilitation. We could all do things that we could all improve on our lives and… stop doing things that we shouldn’t do. We could all deter other people from doing things. The reason that you get arrested and prosecuted and sentenced is because you committed a crime. The differentiating factor between me and those guys who are going to face the death penalty is not that I can’t use some rehabilitation. I’m extraordinarily imperfect. There’s a lot I could improve on in my life. The difference is they committed the crime and I did not.”

So, what kind of justice should we enact on any given situation? Most laws should act as a deterrent, so we already have that. It basically comes down to rehabilitation versus retribution. We can certainly use a bit of both, and even though they seem like opposites, we can enact both at the same time. A small crime should come with a bit of jail time or fine to serve the purposes of justice, and then a release should serve as a second chance for rehabilitation. Repeat offenders will get a little more retribution and a little less rehabilitation every time. And people who commit capital crimes (such as murder, rape, child abuse, terrorism, etc.) should receive the full treatment of rehabilitation and retribution in the form of the death penalty. As famed English writer Samuel Johnson said, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

All right, back to Alexander’s opinions. Her thoughts on the label of felon serves to create the caste system she is trying to establish in this book.

“Once a person is labeled a felon, he or she is ushered into a parallel universe in which discrimination, stigma, and exclusion are perfectly legal, and privileges of citizenship such as voting and jury service are off-limits. It does not matter whether you have actually spent time in prison; your second-class citizenship begins the moment you are branded a felon.”

I find it strange when Critical Race Theory types argue against discrimination one moment, and then argue for it the next. An objective standard for discrimination is that it is not inherently a bad thing. I discriminate all the time. I hire a plumber to fix my plumbing, not a librarian. I am sexually attracted to women, so I am not going to swipe right on Tinder on a man’s profile (is Tinder still a thing? idk). If I own a business and am hiring for a position with two candidates of similar skillset and experience and one of them has a criminal background and the other does not, I am going to hire the candidate with no criminal background. Does this mean all felons are evil? No, of course not, but it is a consequence of committing a serious crime. The label of felon should deter you from becoming one.

“Reducing the amount of time people spend behind bars – by eliminating harsh mandatory minimums – will alleviate some of the unnecessary suffering caused by this system, but it will not disturb the closed circuit. Those labeled felons will continue to cycle in and out of prison, subject to perpetual surveillance by the police, and unable to integrate into mainstream society and economy. Unless the number of people who are labeled felons is dramatically reduced, and unless the laws and policies that keep people with criminal records marginalized from mainstream society and economy are eliminated, the system will continue to create and maintain an enormous undercaste.”

I made most of my points on the felon label above, but maybe it makes sense to remove the felon label after a certain period of time of good behavior (if that does not already exist). I think it comes down to this: do potential employers, landlords, and lenders/insurers have the right to know who they are engaging in business with? If the answer is no, then what gives banks, credit card companies, and lenders the right to check your credit history? If the answer is yes but people should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of criminal history, then what gives the right for the institutions I listed above to reject your business based on your credit history or the risk they take for lending? Should a convicted sex offender be allowed to be a school teacher with no say from the school? Should a convicted thief be allowed to work at a bank with no say from bank management. Should a convicted arsonist be allowed to rent anywhere without say from the landlord? We should not compare discrimination based on criminal record to discrimination based on race, which is what Alexander seems to be leading to. If we protect rights for felons, we take away rights from non-felons. I can get behind Alexanders attempts to protect the 4th Amendment, civil liberties, fight against other unconstitutional police practices, and reform some drug laws but I am not willing potentially harm others out of a sense of compassion for people who made a (or a few) very bad choices.

Thanks for reading my rant style review of Chapter 2 (Part 3) of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration In The Age Of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. Please let me know if you find this useful. My goal here is to explain each chapter enough and in a somewhat objective way so others do not waste their time and money on investigating this material themselves. I always encourage anyone who wants to know more about the ideas in this book to go and read it themselves, but in case you do not want to, I am here for you. Please leave a comment with your thoughts.

Thanks for being a part of the Engineering Politics Locals Community!