The Hunger Gamerization of American Police and the Community

[PHOTO CREDIT: VIOREL FLORESCU/North Jersey/Landov]

By Jason Michael Williams

On December 20th, 2014 in the late afternoon social media and television news stations were flooded with reports regarding the execution of two NYPD officers . Later into the day Mayor de Blasio held a press conference where NYPD officers protested his presence by turning their backs to him. One lesson that stems from this atrocity is that all lives should matter, including both officers and innocent civilians. As a result of conflict, both sides (police and community) have had to taste the unnecessary flavor of premature death, and for what? In response to the shooting of the two NYPD officers,Charlotte Schnook made a compelling argument on Facebook:

“Marxist gate keeper theory: police are the enforcers of the hierarchy, and the more abusive the hierarchy gets, the more abusive the police will get, thus the conflict between the proletariat and the law enforcement will snow ball.

You take a job in which you maim, execute and abuse working people, eventually one will treat you the same. Is it horrific? Yep, but revenge has never been pretty…

The police can either stop this abuse of people, or EXPECT this to become more common because folks aren’t sitting ducks forever. “

Although some may take issue with the argument being made by Charlotte, I believe she is making a profound point. Charlotte is, in effect, describing the extent to which American policing to many communities of color and increasingly others have become tyrannical and hyper-repressive. There had been other op-ed articles on the illegitimacy of policing, however, what these articles fail to take into account is the extent to which police illegitimacy has long been a factor in the Black community. This tumultuous relationship between police and Blacks does not exist in a vacuum like so many are painting it out be. In fact, according to many criminologists and police scholars, American policing began in the South with the slave patrols (Balko, 2014), and yet like then, today, the response to the outcries of Blacks on this issue is non-acknowledgement and condemnation-on par with the story line of “The Hunger Games,” no?

The sole duty of the slave patrols was to maintain white supremacy to the detriment of the Africans who were enslaved and denied their humanity- point blank! If a discussion is to take place regarding the tumultuous relationship between Blacks and the police, it must begin there. It must start with the fact that much as not changed-that, in fact, when police officers are in communities of color the feeling is still very much like the slave patrol. Moreover, today police resources and power are still disproportionately situated within communities of color; meanwhile criminals in Washington, D.C., on Wall Street, and other corporate criminals go unnoticed and unaffected by justice. This unwillingness to focus police resources on other areas of crime is also observed via the FBI uniform crime report which seems to purposely focus solely on what may be considered street crime-not white collar or political crime, the crimes of which do the most harm to the public (see also, Friedrichs, 2003).

This concentration of police power within communities of color is on par with the theme of “The Hunger Games” in the sense that these repressed communities see the cops as the gatekeepers of the elite. They do not recognize the police as a legitimate force there for their protection, and their viewpoints ought to be acknowledged. Thus, the police officer’s job (to them) is to enforce often racist and classist laws (among others) for the sole purpose of maintaining the alignment. The results from these practices are further used to legitimize the subordination of the affected groups at the behest of the ruling class which subsequently maintains superiority (see Giuliani’s remarks on Black crime).

In fact, this is the primary reason why victims of state violence are immediately vilified and made to appear as if death was deserved (e.g., as in the case of Brown, Myers, Garner and countless others). Official statistics are rarely used to address crime problems forthrightly, but are rather used as mechanisms of justification for majoritarian trickery that masquerades as justice for all. Meanwhile, communities of color are being torn apart by a “justice system” that is obsessed with delivering rigid and unremitting punishment more than anything even remotely related to the word justice. One can walk into any American inner-city and see these results for himself.

Surprisingly after the Ferguson decision there seem to have been an uprising in consciousness surrounding the nearly tyrannical power of American police in communities of color and the near illegitimacy and outright silliness of the American justice system. People from all walks of life are protesting in defense of the notion that #BlackLivesMatter and these protests are disrupting business as usual. These protests have angered police unions across the nation, thus sending the message that certain people have not the right to protest and exclaim freely in America that they too matter, that the continued murdering of innocent Black lives at the hands of the state should be unacceptable in a free society. Hunger Games-like?

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the murdering and brutalization of Black bodies with impunity is as American as apple pie. America has a history of tolerating such brutality, and this history has yet to be confronted because the ruling elite has decided that it does not matter. This devaluation of people’s feelings and experiences is what gives rise to Katniss Everdeens (the victor in The Hunger Games). The systematic exclusion of the repressed will almost always lead to conflicts and catastrophe on both sides as witnessed with the shooting of the two NYPD officers. The question is how does a civilized society respond to this?

Additionally, Charlotte’s argument is rooted in histories of physical violence against the marginalized and the utter reckless indifference of the ruling class against excluded communities since the beginning of American civilization. This hegemonic destruction of marginalized experiences, bodies, and voices disguised as justice and fact is unhealthy and an affront to democracy and basic human decency. The current conflict is symbolic of the bottom having had enough. The bottom is reacting to an authoritarian body in ways that describe their lack of hope. Case in point: The gentlemen who decided to kill the two NYPD officers was not only acting in his lonesome, but clearly he was a young man without hope, and one affected by police violence. Society should focus on what created his hopelessness. Or perhaps society should wrestle with the fact that a Black is killed by an officer every 28 hours. Or that since 911, there have been more police killings of civilians than soldiers killed in the Iraq War. Hunger Games?

The question that lingers now is whether or not society will respond in a manner on par with the ruling elite in The Hunger Games or a manner consistent with democratic values. The test of America sits before us right now as the world watches in disbelief while American exceptionalism is steadily torn to pieces due to socially manufactured poisons that this nation has yet to confront. The shooting of the two NYPD officers should be condemned, but it should not hinder the change needed in the American criminal justice system, otherwise there will likely be more casualties. Both sides have much to lose, and with that said a change must come if the legitimacy of law enforcement and justice is ever to existfor all in this nation.

A version of this article was published on Truthout. Permission to reprint granted by author.

Works Cited

Friedrichs, D. (2003). Trust criminals: White collar crime in contemporary society, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills: Wadsworth.

Policing the Blacks: Ferguson and Past Histories

By Jason Michael Williams

The continuing protesting efforts in Ferguson are a constant reminder that democracy left unchecked is totalitarianism disguised as freedom and inclusivity. The protestors in Ferguson, who represent all walks of life, are protesting in defense of a mentality and ideal that is unable to conceive inequality and mistreatment as a normative function within American democracy. They understand that no American citizen should have to face differential treatment within a society that allegedly claims to be among the leaders of the world and yet is not whole. How could it be 2014 and yet, still, as a society, brutalization against Black bodies is tolerated and, in many cases, quickly justified by those who have yet to accept Blackness as their equal within the human family, let alone within American democracy. Yes, the problem is largely race-based, and America should accept this truth however hard it might be to fathom.

Many critics on this subject rush toward politically correct speaking points that overwhelmingly discount a truth that is knowable and historic. The politically correct orientation of Ferguson is one based in the fantasy of colorblindness. It attempts to shield the hard historical fact that policing in America has always been one of color/class-consciousness. Thus, American policing at its foundation is inherently protective of the status quo. Regarding Blacks, this reality dates back to plantation justice-a time within which Black bodies were brutality policed at the behest of White domination. Sadly, almost 400 years later, this would still be the dominant thinking behind policing the Blacks, whether known consciously or not.

Given the history of American social control and its relationship to Black bodies, there could be not a single question of doubt against the general inquiry of those in Ferguson-police accountability. America has long tolerated and justified the brutalization of Black bodies (even when the culprit is Black) and, because of this historic hard fact, it is hard to fathom how some are unable to conceive the possibility that police officers might be engaging in the same activity that was once legal or customary within American society. Police officers are not somehow disconnected from the broader American ethos as they too are socially conditioned and therefore susceptible to the biases, prejudices, and misperceptions that ought to be checked given the amount of power they hold over the lives of citizens.

The answer lies in the stark racial contrast regarding the value of life and how certain lives are legitimated to the detriment of others. An example of this contrast was eloquently and expectedly showcased at a Cardinals game where pro-Brown protestors were met face to face with an all-White crowd of pro-Wilson responders. Thus, the racial make-up of this incident speaks volumes to the impact that histories of racial control and exclusion have had on modern day social-racial discourses.

Why are people surprised by the fact that Black men, in particular, are the quintessential victim of police brutality and violence, again, given the history of brutalization in America? For example, a study published by ProPublica, recently found that Black teens were 21 times more likely to be murdered by police than White teens from 2010-2012 (see figure 1). Yet, most will inevitably fail to realize the deep importance of this study as it situates, clearly, the level of vulnerability that Blacks must still face in 2014.

Moreover, the revelations noted in this study and many others like it, is what compels those in Ferguson to protest. The revelations in studies like these also give power to the significance of past histories; for example, the often quoted words of Chief Justice Taney in the United States Supreme Court Dred Scott decision regarding Africans:

"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument…They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion."

Given the rampant amounts of blatant and hidden discrimination in the American administration of justice, how could anyone argue that Taney's words are not as important today in reflexive contexts as they were when they were written? Like Mr. Scott, the protestors in Ferguson are asking for inclusion and the humanity of all to be respected. History serves as a constant reminder on the extent to which their simple requests have not been met, but when will this nightmare end? Moreover, how can America continue to be the mediator of world problems when it continues to ignore domestic issues like police brutality? It is the inconsistencies in American democracy that hinders U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and beyond. Even before Ferguson the international community knew that the U.S. does not always practice what it preaches.

One of the last bastions of pre-sixties white supremacy is, in fact, the criminal justice system itself. For instance, the use of the criminal justice system as a post-sixties tool of racialized social control begun with the state's hampering down on resistance movements and groups in the '70s and later with the war on drugs, which targeted Blacks. It is the ultimate tool because most people (especially the majority) do not question the law as a result of being taught to respect it at all costs. Thus, judicial mistreatment is justified via majoritarian trickery masquerading as justice. Also, people are taught that justice in America is colorblind, albeit easily debunked by decades of social science research. The result is a recipe for judicial deceit and betrayal because it complicates what is essentially in plain sight, at least to the non-majority.

Nevertheless, Ferguson is an excellent test case on which to examine race and criminal justice. For example, many pundits are arguing for better training, community relations, and the inclusion of people of color on police forces, all of which has been tried before with little difference. On the contrary, however, the solution is simply police accountability. Officers of color are equally guilty, at a lesser rate, though, of some of the same questionable behavior predominately exhibited by White officers. Therefore, more training and diversity, although probably useful, is not a panacea. Like Taney, rogue officers understand the Constitution very well, and they recognize that racial profiling and excessive force is inappropriate even though they choose (like any ordinary criminal) to engage in those kinds of behavior. Yet, at the same time, these officers also know that there are very little consequences for poor decision making that is often life changing and ending

Therefore, the solution to problems like these must be akin to the same kinds of consequences faced by civilians. The people in Ferguson are tired of the term, "justifiable homicide" they instead would like to see investigations and consequences as opposed to having to witness two different forms of justice. They see no difference between the extrajudicial murders of yesterday and so-called justifiable homicides today, which Blacks are accounted disproportionately. They are tired of subjective citizenship when they deserve full citizenship. They are tired of having to respect the rights of others while their rights are unacknowledged. They are tired of being guilty until proven innocent unlike Darren Wilson (and other White males) who seem to never be guilty first of criminal behavior because they are likely perceived as innocent and non-dangerous. Finally and perhaps more important , their tiredness falls on the backdrop of histories of racial discrimination (legal and custom), brutalization of their bodies via systems of social control/criminal justice, and outright democratic exclusion. The only fix to this problem is police accountability . No other fix will work. Those in Ferguson and beyond must believe that they too matter and that the death of their bodies will be met with swift justice . The Ferguson movement is essentially proposing that now is our society's chance to prove Taney wrong.

The Zimmerman Verdict and Race: A Brief Criminological Assessment

[PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS]

By Jason Michael Williams

After the verdict was read to the world that Saturday evening, I said to myself that Monday would bring a hurricane of legal responses to the case outcome specifically on the role (if any) that race played before and throughout the trial. Having said that, I also knew that none of these dialogues would involve a criminologist – someone who could contextualize the role of race beyond the scope of the law in these proceedings.

Cable stations like CNN, HLN, and MSNBC have invited on an assortment of legal experts throughout and after the trial to help with contextualizing some of the aspects of the trial, however; an issue they could not hit on in any aggressive and tangible manner was the issue of race. Why is this? Because many lawyers, by default, have a natural appreciation for the American justice system. For example, many lawyers are not aggressively conscious regarding the connection between court actors (judge, lawyer, juror, and witnesses) and hidden racisms during adjudication because to them case outcomes are based on the evidence and nothing else, thus the machinery of justice is impartial.

However, the theory that the American justice system is fair and impartial has long been debunked. Decades upon decades of social science research have shown that impartiality in the justice system is a theory at best, yet the majority of Americans continue to believe the opposite at the apparent expense of others who are every day targets of this machinery of injustice and social death.

As a criminal justice professor, one of the main aspects of the justice system that I often discuss in my courses is that it’s based on an adversarial model (e.g. may the best man win). Therefore, one can easily argue that the American justice system is not designed to get to the truth. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the logic of the said argument, many lawyers and Americans continue to advocate quite the opposite. They advocate that the American system of justice is a model for the world.

The problem with society is that it fails to include the perspective of those who are in opposition with the way in which the justice system operates. When one simplifies this conflict of perspectives it becomes clear that this split is predominantly based on race, although some may also implicate class. Sadly, this conflict reflects that the majority of the country uncritically accepts the theory that justice is fair and colorblind in spite of what social science research has historically shown. Meanwhile, those who fall prey to this machinery of injustice are blamed for their victimization as the system is constantly legitimated each time someone is convicted because most people refuse to believe the system can be unfair.

Regarding race and the Zimmerman verdict, a point missed within the race discourse is the role of the jury. Although the actions of Zimmerman are questionable if one focuses in on his language in the 911 tape, could race not have been an issue in the jury box too? Could it be that the jury saw race and included it within their assessment of the facts? Juror B-37 had engaged in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper that had resulted in major social-media backlash (e.g., see, Mediaite for summary/videos). In fact, many people believed that this particular juror could easily validate prior assumptions that the mostly white jury would eventually side with Zimmerman. There were moments in her dialogue when she clearly appeared sympathetic to the defendant while having total disregard to Martin, who was unarmed and murdered.

Consider and analyze the following quotes from Mediaite, who provided a brief transcript of the interview:

Quote 1

If there was one witness who the juror didn’t find entirely credible it was Trayvon Martin ‘s friend Rachel Jeantel . “I didn’t think it was credible, but I felt sorry for her. She didn’t ask to be in this place. She wanted to go. She didn’t want to be any part of this case. I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her.” She added, “She was embarrassed by being there, because of her education and her communication skills, that she just wasn’t a good witness.”

Quote 2

Cooper asked the juror specifically about Jeantel’s “creepy-ass cracker” statement that drew wide attention during the trial. She said she thought it was “probably the truth” and that “Trayvon probably said that” but said she didn’t “think it’s really racial. I think it’s just everyday life. The type of life that they live, and how they’re living, in the environment that they’re living in.”

Quote 3

In the second part of the interview, the juror told Cooper she thought Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place” on the night he shot and killed Martin and the only thing he is guilty of is “not using good judgment [sic].” She said she thought he had “every right to carry a gun,” adding, “I think it’s everyone’s right to carry a gun.”

Quote 4

When Cooper asked if the juror thought Zimmerman “really felt his life was in danger” she responded. “I do. I really do.” When he asked if she thought Martin “threw the first punch,” she said, “I think he did.” Despite those assertions, she admitted that among she and the other jurors, “Nobody knew exactly what happened.”

Quote 1 describes the utter use of stereotypes that this juror, and possibly other jurors, had used when contextualizing Jeantel. Unfortunately, it is very possible that those stereotypes clouded this juror’s judgment regarding the validity of Jeantel’s testimony. Remember, Jeantel was a major witness to the altercation because she was the last person to speak to Martin. Nonetheless, the only thing this juror remembers regarding Jeantel’s credibility is her “bad communication skills” and “education,” nothing about the facts of the case. Clearly, this juror did not consider that Jeantel’s testimony did, in fact, match the official timeline of the event. How is that for being objective, right? Nevertheless, theoretically, jurors are not capable of this.

Quote 2 describes the juror’s quick decision to believe that Martin did, in fact, use the word “cracker.” However, what is more important about this quote is the extent to which she associates the use of this word with the everyday lives and environment of people like them (meaning Blacks). Clearly, to this juror, Blacks are foreign to her and they live radically different and decaying lifestyles in which they cannot help themselves. Also, she claimed that the use of “cracker” by Martin was not racial but is sure to paint Blacks as separate from Whites by describing how they live, thus making an implicit racial distinction between herself and Martin. Her responses here indicate that she is more likely to include these stereotypes in her assessment of the facts.

Quote 3 simply shows that at the very least this juror did believe that Zimmerman exercised poor judgment, which is also indicative regarding the value of Martin’s life to this juror. However, she did not feel that Zimmerman’s misjudgment was criminal in any way. She later shows her allegiance to the Second Amendment, which may also have racial implications because many argue that the gun debate is smothered with racial overtones. She also states that Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place”-insensitive, much? This quote shows that somewhere within the mind of this juror she knew Zimmerman was wrong even though she admitted from the very beginning that she voted not guilty. One could easily argue that the facts did not mean much to this juror.

Quote 4 displays that this juror believed overwhelmingly that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. She believes this even though she admits that, among the jurors, nobody knew for sure what happened that night. Surprisingly, she did not give thought to the possible fact that Martin could have been defending himself against Zimmerman either. Why did this juror, and obviously others, believe that Martin was the aggressor in the face of admitted confusion about the night in question? Perhaps Martin’s skin was too dark, which made him the default aggressor.

Some people will read my assessment of the quotes and say they may be likely but not necessarily true, and they would be correct. However, they also cannot deny the qualitative significance that jurors’ mindsets can hold in case outcomes. Again, social science research continues to show that implicit biases or extra-legal factors (e.g., racial stereotypes, etc) continue to play a large role within the American justice system. It is also important to note that the above quotes are small snapshots into this juror’s mindset that could have played a role in her assessment of the facts. The full transcript is more troubling as this juror exhibits many more hints regarding her mindset and bias toward Zimmerman. It should also be noted that, at various times, the juror completely misrepresented some of the facts of the case, which makes one wonder if the facts even mattered to this juror. Furthermore, this juror is also married to a lawyer, which could have impacted her and other jurors in their deliberations. Clearly this juror is pro-Zimmerman. Therefore, it is very possible that she backed her perspective on the fact that her husband is a lawyer, which could have had an impact on how her fellow jurors saw the facts as well.

In closing, this small assessment drives so many Americans to lose faith in the justice system. Many people understand that, in a racist society, justice can never be equal. Justice is not blind so long as others (in this case jurors) continue to believe that extra-legal factors supersede the facts. It is the implicit biases held within the justice system on all levels that sustains racial disparities within the criminal justice system. This is the reality from which the outcry from the verdict derives. It derives from a system’s inability to accept the decades upon decades of social science research proving racial bias within the justice system.

Sadly, the justice system refuses to provide a contextualization of race outside the scope of the law, and this is the point from which many legal analysts draw their conclusions regarding the race question (e.g., some lawyers may say the evidence does not support that race was an issue). Some people cannot and refuse to see how the jury box can ruin a trial because, to them, the jury is theoretically impartial. Theoretically, members of the jury cannot be bias and must leave extra-legal factors out of their assessment, yet Juror B-37 shows otherwise. To many people, once the jury decides the trial is over. The justice system should be respected for working as it was designed to work and everyone should resume his or her life. At the very least, the verdict could have been manslaughter, but as some have argued in social-media, Martin may have been the wrong complexion for protection. Once again, extra-legal factors have decided a verdict. Nonetheless, more analyses on the (un)equal application of “stand your ground” laws may be helpful in debating the validity of “stand your ground.” Until a judicial revolution occurs, many will continue to ask the age-old question: will the justice system ever consider Blacks as human beings deserving of protection and justice? Remember, one cannot assess the outcome of this trail without involving the social/criminological framework that surrounds the administration of justice in America.

Originally published in the Spring/Summer 2013 edition of the Race & Justice Scholar Newsletter.

The National Securitization of Traditional Criminal Justice

By Jason Michael Williams

In the post-911 era, traditional criminal justice processes have become nearly ancient. For example, according to some scholars within criminology/criminal justice, the administration of justice presently finds itself at a strange crossroad (Wacquant, 2009; Garland, 2001; Braithewaite, 2000; Simon, 2007). This crossroad has been linked to several paradigmatic shifts that have been occurring within the crime control complex that has governed the administration of justice since the 1980s. Some believe this shift is the consequence of late modernity (Garland, 2001; Monahan, 2006) and others blame neo-liberalism (Brown, 2010), and the changing currents within the social, political, and cultural contexts. Birthed from this discourse are crimes of late modernity. These crimes consist of terrorism, cyber- crime, and other crimes categorized under the umbrella of national security.

What is of essential importance is the context in which the mechanisms of punishment and crime control has changed. For example, traditionally, rights afforded to U.S. citizens via the Constitution were off limits and could never be challenged or taken away under any circumstances; however, today, because of various laws and powers of the Executive Branch of government, U.S. citizens are at a greater risk of being punished and surveilled by the government. A good indicator of this reality is the current debates on the Obama Administration and the National Security Administration's (NSA) spying program. The ACLU has taken measures to combat the intrusive qualities of the NSA's spying program.

According to the ACLU, the U.S. government does not seem to have a concrete purpose for collecting data on its citizens; it simply alleges that, by doing so, it makes it easier for intelligence officials to identify trends and possible leads later. This shifting in the administration of justice implicates a minority report-effect wherein law enforcement has become involved in the business of preemptive-law enforcement. This shift is a process whereby the government investigates to prevent crime but under a dogmatic notion that everyone is possibly guilty before committing the crime. This logic is abundantly counterproductive to the usual processes of law enforcement. However, the biggest question regarding this discourse is why this is happening and what are some critical elements that may need to be contextualized for a better understanding on what is occurring.

In the post-911 era, the crime control model of administering justice has been placed on steroids. Packer (1968) describes the crime control model as a process in which justice is swift and based on just deserts. There is very little room for improvement of the individual under this model, for justice is at best an assembly line and crime is never-ending and unfixable. The crime control model operates off the presumption of guilt, which is congruent to the way in which the system operates today under preemptive-law enforcement. Large quantities of cases are brought into adjudication and convicts are swiftly assigned punishment. In fact, many cases are never brought to court due to the continuous movement of the system and the large amounts of persons being charged daily. According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 90-95% of defendants on both the federal and state levels never reach the trail stage due to plea bargains, which have more striking cons to them than pros. Timothy Lynch of the CATO Institute has written a compelling article that focused on government's response to one's option/right to a trial by jury, thus alleging that government retaliates against those defendants who are apathetic to pleas.

On the other hand, Packer describes the due process model as a more egalitarian approach to administering justice. Under this model, the humanity of the victim and perpetrator is recognized, and there is no loss of Constitutional rights for either side. The due process model understands that error can occur within the fact-finding process and makes strides toward making sure that such errors are avoided and considered; thus, it tries to maintain the integrity of justice.

However, the impact that all the above has on modern day criminal justice is one of the most important questions that must be answered. Since 911, social control has become more punitive. Government can now surveil people in ways never done before. Techno-surveillance has become a very attractive tool in modern-day spying. More strikingly, state and local law enforcement agencies are starting to impersonate federal protocol. For example, many states now have counter-terrorism units, cyber-crime units, and departments of homeland security and emergency management. These advents are indicative of a dual police state (federal and state), or a system in which surveillance reigns supreme 24/7 and within all spaces of governance.

Another critical element to process is the extent to which the private sector has increasingly become involved in the administration of justice. Because the post-911 era brings with it a hyper-punitive platform of administering justice, mass incarceration has become a huge phenomenon and profitable idea to many in the private sector. Some scholars have looked at private prisons and the reentry industry as two of the main beneficiaries of mass incarceration (Thompkins, 2010; Wacquant, 2010; Hallett, 2006; Price, 2006), alleging that private prisons and reentry organizations profit off modern-day punishment and surveillance. For example, Thompkins (2010) explains that, many times, ex-prisoners are recommitted back to prison because of their inability to prioritize their need to work alongside attending counseling sessions with reentry organizations. As a result of not attending mandated counseling sessions because of simple scheduling concerns, many ex-prisoners are sent back to prison to repeat the never-ending cycle of surveillance; meanwhile, reentry organizations and prisons continue to profit off their misery and endless captivity.

The private market found its transformational niche in criminal justice after 911. As a result of 911, intelligence became the key focus within crime control. The government wanted to prevent another attack from happening, which gave the intelligence community an opportunity of a lifetime; however, much of what it was and can do requires the voluntary submission of many civil liberties from the citizenry. This new focus would later become known as the intelligence industrialization complex. Under this complex, intelligence is outsourced to private entities to conduct the usual tasks of intelligence gathering and assessment that would be done by government agencies. However, due to neo-liberal logic, this task has been handed over to private industry under the ludicrous assumption that the private sector is free of error and more efficient. Sadly, most are unaware of the effects this has caused on the local levels of law enforcement. It has turned ordinary citizens into criminal suspects. Preemptive-law enforcement has become part of the daily routine within traditional criminal justice. For example, occurrences of police brutality have been met with extreme protests within the last decade. Civil protests have become occasions for law enforcement to test their counter-terrorism exercises on apparent non-threatening citizens, and policies like stop and frisk have become legitimated under the mantras of "get tough" and "crime control."

Under what appears to be a national security-criminal justice, even law-abiding citizens are suspected criminals, and much of this "suspicion" has racial implications behind them. For example, a report by the Public Advocate, analyzing 2012 NYC stop and frisk data, found the following:

1. The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

2. The likelihood a stop of African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

3. Despite the overall reduction in stops, the proportion involving black and Latino New Yorkers has remained unchanged. They continue to constitute 84 percent of all stops, despite comprising only 54 percent of the general population. And the innocence rates remain at the same level as 2011 - at nearly 89 percent.

The above findings are grounds for new theorization on the impact of national security and its impact on localized crime. Localized crime under national security-criminal justice has become just as punitive and totalitarian as crimes on the federal level regarding national security. Furthermore, this new formation of administering justice as noticed above seems to have a disparate impact on racial-minorities. The disparate impact has more to do with labeling and stereotypes than any genuine threat. Furthermore, immigration is another "crime issue" in which to contextualize under national security-criminal justice. Immigration, of course, has racial implications behind it as well due to the assortment of pejoratives used against Spanish-speaking persons who are automatically alleged to be "illegals."

What is most important about this new system of social control is the extent to which it has hyper-punitized the traditional system of criminal justice. The same justifying arguments used by the Bush and Obama Administrations have been used by local government officials concerning, for example, stop and frisk and Mayor Bloomberg. Much of this justifying rhetoric is believed by many due to the unwavering presence of totalitarianism. Most people do not care to know whether or not a certain law or practice is just, especially when the law or practice does not affect them. This is the case with stop and frisk, whereas most Caucasians in NYC are not particularly concerned about stop and frisk because their Mayor and flawed police statistics tells them minorities are to blame for rampant crime and, therefore, minorities will be the targets of stop and frisk. However, funny enough, this narrative works notwithstanding the facts as reported by the Public Advocate as well as prior data that had long depicted that the myth of the dangerous minority could not be further from truth.

By framing certain criminal acts under national security, the traditional methodology of responding to crime becomes obsolete. Instead, adjudication is very swift and harsh, and justified by a zero tolerance ideology. There is very little room for fact-finding, which takes away the scrutiny that usually comes with traditional trials. Nonetheless, what is especially intriguing is the extent to which some traditionally domestic issues have suddenly become part of national security discussions, and many of those issues are tied to politically powerless groups. For example, in NYC at one time, there were talks regarding the labeling of street gangs as terrorists. Another issue would be immigration and the extent to which republicans/conservatives believe immigration to be pertinent to national security. Both of the aforementioned issues have racially-anchored implications hidden in the subtext. Therefore, policy implemented in those areas can only lead to disparate treatment onto those selected groups hidden in the subtext (Monahan, 2010).

Moreover, the state will argue the need for such precautionary measures in the name of risk management, which is the quintessential logic behind preemptive-law enforcement and post-modern surveillance. This logic is also legitimated through the use of fear as a tool of galvanizing support for the new form of social control-national security-criminal justice. As the traditional system of criminal justice becomes more like that of national security, citizens can expect harsher policy and penal control. Sadly, much is not being done to on behalf of researchers and government regarding an exploration on the extent to which the powerless will be as always innocent victims in this paradigmatic shifting (see, e.g., Haggerty & Samatas, 2010; Manahan, 2006;).

With the ongoing and aggressive warehousing of undocumented persons and citizens in private detention facilities, and the continued expression of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, time can only tell whether or not the American people will tap into a greater consciousness that will catapult the system into a more egalitarian reality. However, in order for such a revolution to happen, the essentialist concept of hyper-individualism must cease to exist. Furthermore, justice itself must be re-conceptualized to fit the post-911 context (see, e.g., Hudson, 2009) to make brainstorming on this matter efficient. People must begin to sympathize with others, they must begin to see beyond the context of the self and discover the interconnectedness between those who are not suspected criminals (predominantly Caucasian) and those under indefinite surveillance (predominantly people of color). Otherwise, national security-criminal justice will continue to turn the U.S into a police state that will eventually impact everyone - even those who may not be targets of this vicious system at the present time. The national securitization of traditional criminal justice is partly due to society's inability to understand issues of late modernity, and so instead of evaluating the issues logically so that a proper response can be applied society responds in the only way in which it knows. It responds via the institution of usually racist, xenophobic, sexist, and classist, campaigns against the "other/issue," which routinely gets entangled into the criminal justice system, because punishment and social control is of course the only option in America.

Works Cited

Braithwaite, J. (2000). The New Regulatory State And The Transformation Of Criminology. British Journal of Criminology 40:2, 222-238.

Brown, D. (2011). Neoliberalism as a criminological subject. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44:1, 129-142.

Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control Crime Control and Social Order In Contemporary Society. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.

Haggerty, K. D., & Samatas, M. (2010). Surveillance and democracy. New York : Routledge .

Hallett, M. A. (2006). Private prisons in America : a critical race perspective. Urbana : University of Illinois Press.

Hudson, B. (2009). Justice in a Time of Terror. British Journal of Criminology, 702-717.

Monahan, T. (2006). The Surveillance Curriculum: Risk Management and Social Control in the Neoliberal School. In T. Monahan, Surveillance And Security Technological Politics And Power In Everyday Life (pp. 109-124). NY: Routledge .

Monahan, T. (2010). Surveillance as governance: social inequality and the pursuit of democratic surveillance. In K. D. Haggerty, & M. Samatas, Surveillance and Democracy (pp. 91-110). NY: Routledge .

Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford : Stanford University Press .

Price, B. (2006). Merchandizing prisoners : who really pays for prison privatization? Westport: Praeger .

Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime : how the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press .

Thompkins, D. E. (2010). The expanding prisoner reentry industry. Dialectical Anthropology 34:4, 589-604.

Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham : Duke University Press .

Wacquant, L. (2010). Prisoner reentry as myth and ceremony. Dialect Anthropology 34:, 605-620.