Introduction
According to the Bureau of statistics dating 2005, the drug arrests have significantly increased. This has been a change seen from the past decades. The number shot from almost half a million people to approximately 2 million in almost 30 years. The enforcements of the drug law has mostly been seen affecting colored communities. This is supported by the number of arrests made between late 90s and the onset of 2000 (Alexander, 2011). It is true to say that the policies as well as the practices that follow arrest are implicitly biased. From a structured perspective, both the Hispanics as well as the Blacks have the likelihood of possessing guns. This is coupled by the sell of drugs that is tied to reasons such as socio-economic. Furthermore, differences in the qualities of these communities suggest an increased number of arrests. In addition, the perpetrators are likely to conduct their business in the open where the police are able to see them. Thus, the structural perspective can assist to shed light in the differences of socio-economic. These differences lead to difference in the behavior of the offenders found in the different communities. As such, these differences lead to the increased number of arrests (Levinson & Smith, 2012).
As statistics stand at now, the black African American men have almost 30% chance of going to jail over drug related crimes. The Hispanics follow closely with more than 15% chance. The white males are last with only 4%. As such, the whites outnumber the blacks regardless of the same communities using the same drug. The African American communities continue to comprise almost 40% of those arrested due to possession of the drugs with convictions of the arrested offenders reaching up to 60%. Needless to say, this disparity of the enforcement of the law has had a staggering impact. In every 10 of black men, 3 are either serving time in prison or on probation. Furthermore, they could also be in parole. As such, this represents one conviction of a black man due to a felony (Schimdt, 2012).
The Latinos statistics are not pleasing with their charge sheet accounting for almost 50% of the charges in the year 1999. History recalls communities of color being targets of the drug war. For instance, the onset of the 1900 saw the image of the black men used to pass the law on drugs. By the year 1950, more than 15 states in the United States had put strict measures on the use and sell of marijuana. This was aimed at targeting the Mexican immigrants that had flocked the United States. This was in search of job opportunities. Furthermore, there was stringent penalties that were established with the beginning of 1950 (Turner-Sadler, 2009). This was in response to the opium that was from the Asian continent. The Act was known as Boggs and was established in the year 1951. New York soon followed suit with the pressure from the public to have tougher laws on drug offenders. This saw the enactment of Rockefeller laws that suggested severe terms of imprisonment with no considerations to the circumstances. The gravity of this situation can be seen after decades down the line with almost 95% of the charges related to drugs being from the Hispanics and the Blacks. Furthermore, President Reagan cemented the ideology of the drugs related crimes and the colored communities during the revamping of the war on drugs. The media enhanced this move through the hysteria on drugs that lead to the Congress passing the minimum sentencing on crack cocaine. This draconian minimum was to be mandatory. However, there was lighter treatment on powdered cocaine, which is mostly associated with whites. Hence, there was a distortion in the prosecution since most drug offenders were white. As such, the year 2001 saw more than 70% of the blacks as defendants of the drug. Those that were found in possession of powdered cocaine weighing 500 grams were subject to a jail term not exceeding 5 years. There was same treatment for the same weight of crack cocaine (Alexander, 2012).
The practices of the law enforcers fuel the inequalities found in the races. The DEA ( Drug Enforcement Administration) has assisted to train the police force on detection of highway travelers with drugs on transit. However, this profiling has been inclined to colored communities that are associated with crimes. For instance, majority of those pulled over in Maryland are people of color regardless of the road travelers on that route seeing only less that 20% of the travelers from the Hispanic or the Black community. The statistics in California are disturbing with almost 90% of those pulled over being from the minority groups since the year 1991. These statistics can be found in the whole country (Schimdt, 2012).
However, this profiling is not just in the highways. It can also be found in checkpoint customs. For instance, in the late 1990s, people were subjected to body searches with only 4% success. The majority of the individuals subjected to this search were minorities from both the Black and the Hispanic community. Furthermore, in our streets, the young minorities are often stopped for frisks known as terry. This was after a ruling by the Supreme Court, which gave the police a green light for such searches citing the police required no warrant to stop one for a search. This is after a reasonable suspicion (Turner-Sadler, 2009).
Another incentive that exists for the law enforcers includes the law on the forfeiture of the civil asset. This allows the police to sell the property after seizing it without even proving the offense of the offender. Furthermore, this allows the law enforcers to keep a substantial portion to themselves. In addition, the departments of the police rely on the forfeiture of the assets in order for them to be at par with the grants of the government. Furthermore, this allows them to meet their operational costs. This among others includes the salary of the police. The police target the minority groups that are not able to voice out their problems due to their marginalized state. As such, most of the police officers take advantage of these seizures enriching themselves without the public eye of most of the Americans realizing these practices. Furthermore, local prosecutors as well as the judges enhance the gravity of the situation due to their minimal discretion (Alexander, 2012).
The women are also prey to the injustices on war on drugs. This is due to coercement into the drug business by either their husbands or even their boyfriends. However, the treatment that they receive in prison is not that different. The number of incarcerated women in prison shot by more than 800% from the late 1980s. Surprisingly, most of these women are found on poor communities. For instance, most of the women before their arrests had an income of less than $2000. Furthermore, the women from the minority groups are often targeted by the drug policies. During pregnancy, the black women are prone to many tests related to the drugs. This is coupled by reports to the agencies on children welfare. For instance, in South Carolina, one hospital selectively tested Black women and reported the positive results to the police. The police would then incarcerate the women forcing them to give birth in the prisons. However, the Supreme Court scrapped off this policy (Turner-Sadler, 2009).
The effect that this drug war has left behind is staggering. Now more than ever in history, almost 2 million children are growing up without their father. The number left by the women is 200,000. The likelihood of the Black children growing without a parent is 9 times more than 3 times of the Hispanic community. As such, even the children are getting to feel the impact of this drug war. Even with the youths in the different races using the drugs, there remain an increased number of youths from the minority community facing incarcerations. For a fact, the rate of the black youths arrested is 25 more than the whites (Levinson & Smith, 2012).
It is important to note that the drug wars are having a lasting effect in the community more than we can think of. The policies enforced are able to get into the different segments of life. This includes education, health and welfare. The price paid by the minority groups is high with the emphasis of the repercussions due to the drug trade. As such, this traps the minority groups in a cycle of incarcerations, and addictions. As such, the government offers limited assistance. To date, the American Americans and the Latinos in their prime years die of HIV/AIDS. More than half of the cases of the disease are associated with the sharing of infected needles. The children are not left behind as almost 60%of their death resulting from their parents infecting themselves with the needles. Thus, the government should be implememnting policies that are aimed at reducing infections but instead the government is focused on blocking such endeavors. For example, the State of New Jersey has been seen to arrest any individual attempting to supply injections that are hygienically clean (Schimdt, 2012).
References
Alexander, M. (2011). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.
Levinson, J. D., & Smith, R. J. (2012). Implicit racial bias across the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Yesterday once more: The Carpenters reader. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
Turner-Sadler, J. (2009). African American history: An introduction. New York: Peter Lang.
