4.4 The article “One Hundred Years of Race and Crime” by Paul Butler explores how racial justice and criminal justice have evolved in the U.S. over the

4.4

The article “One Hundred Years of Race and Crime” by Paul Butler explores how racial justice and criminal justice have evolved in the U.S. over the past century. Butler compares the racial issues in criminal law from 1910 to those of 2010, showing that although there has been symbolic racial progress (like having Black prosecutors or a Black president), material inequalities like mass incarceration and racial disparities in sentencing have worsened.

He contrasts two main views:

1. The “New Jim Crow” view: Mass incarceration is the modern version of racial oppression, replacing slavery and Jim Crow laws.

2. The “celebratory tradition” view: Criminal justice has made progress by protecting Black victims more and including more Black professionals in the system.

Butler argues that while the law has improved symbolically (e.g., more rights and protections), it hasn’t materially improved outcomes for Black Americans in the justice system, especially due to drug laws and racialized enforcement. He calls for more direct, race-conscious reforms to fix these deep-rooted problems.(This a Summary of the Article)

After reading the Paul Butler article, think about whether it’s possible for the criminal legal system to make progress on racial justice and still cause harm at the same time. Can both be true?

To help you answer, be sure to:

  1. Briefly explain the two perspectives Butler discusses: the New Jim Crow view and the Celebratory tradition. What are the main ideas behind each one? How are they similar or different?
  2. Decide whether these two views can go together. Can they both be right in some way? Or are they too different to be reconciled? Explain your reasoning.

Share This Post

Email
WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit

Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Related Questions

The article “Dumbing Down Juries” raises concerns about how attorneys often remove jurors with specialized knowledge or professional expertise during

The article “Dumbing Down Juries” raises concerns about how attorneys often remove jurors with specialized knowledge or professional expertise during jury selection—favoring those perceived as more easily influenced. While this strategy may serve legal tactics, it raises important questions about fairness, competence, and transparency in the judicial process. In the

Scruples” Assignment Students shall personally write and upload “A Question of Scruples” (“Scruples”) question by the deadline noted at the end of the

Scruples” Assignment Students shall personally write and upload “A Question of Scruples” (“Scruples”) question by the deadline noted at the end of the syllabus. The “Scruples” question should present a short moral or ethical dilemma. Following the question (the “Scruples card”), the student should then describe why the question is in fact a