forgeflourishflow

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: A 360-Degree View of the Crack Cocaine Epidemic 

An Introduction & History

The United States' deadliest domestic threat indeed was crack cocaine - but not in the way one would expect; the war on drugs was not one the American people won and wore like a badge of glory, the sorrowful years only bore the price tag and body count of one. The war on drugs did not end with Richard Nixen and his eradication efforts, nor did it end with Ronald Reagan and his vilification of substance abuse, and it certainly did not end when George H.W. Bush took office in 1989 and demonized people suffering with addiction.

The war on Crack Cocaine failed, but more importantly the American people were failed by those who swore an oath to protect them. Addiction is still prevalent, and a new age is dawning and it is our job to ensure that what happened in the 1980s never happens again. During a time where many Americans were struggling with addiction, whether it was their own or someone they knew, diversity could have improved upon and influenced the situation— both at an individual level and a systemic— rather than utilizing the ideals and beliefs of solely privileged caucasian congressmen.

‘But— Getting crack cocaine off the streets was a good thing! ... Right?’ When taking the phrase at face value... Yeah! Sure, it sounds amazing that the government wanted to help protect its civilians from harmful substances and prevent addiction. Creating mental health resources, making healthcare and physicians affordable so people do not have to resort to self-medicating, and creating a support network to keep not only drugs off of the streets but also people— there is endless potential for positive reform! However noble the statements from the government at the time, it did not accomplish helping who it was claiming to be for - the people. The presidential address, though thinly veiled, was just as dividing to the members of the public.

On September 5th, 1989 George H.W. Bush, who was the sitting President at the time, made an address to the nation where he declared that crack cocaine was the nation's most dire domestic threat.

This. This is crack cocaine. Seized a few days ago by drug enforcement agents in a park just across the street from the White House. It could easily have been heroin or P.C.P.. It's is innocent looking is Candy. But it's turning our cities into battle zones. And it's murdering our children. Let there be no mistake this stuff is poison. — C-Span (1989)

The statements made by the sitting President, George H.W. Bush, then snowballed into the most expensive addition the ongoing War on Drugs Campaign. During his term, President Bush spent more than the previous four U.S. Presidents combined— around $45 Billion at the time, which nowadays would be approximately $117,235,161,290.32 (Marketplace, 2019). A vast majority of that money was spent militarizing law enforcement and backpedaling on the precious little amount of progress that had been made towards building trust between marginalized communities and police. 

The public address made to the nation that hard-launched us back into the war on drugs, despite the fact that usage of illegal substances and crack cocaine as a whole had been reportedly on a significant decline already. The president’s statement also influenced public opinion of people of color, people struggling with addiction, and many other marginalized peoples. On October 1st, 1989 Michael Massing wrote a headlining article for the New York Post— which at the time averaged 1.601 million daily sales (Cowen, 1989)— titled CRACK'S DESTRUCTIVE SPRINT ACROSS AMERICA.

Meaning, over one million people had access to and most likely read this piece. Over a million people were subject to the praising and deification of the upper class populace of Washington Heights... but were also subject to statements demonizing the low-income community, "Wander off Broadway, though, and the neighborhood quickly seems like an American nightmare." (Massing, 1989). Michael Massing was one of many journalists vilifying the low income neighborhoods that crack cocaine was being sold in; he went further than raising awareness for substance abuse, much further in fact, as he ridiculed the people who lived in these neighborhoods. 

He pointed out two specific blocks, 150th Street and 160th, and how people dressed, how they spoke, what they looked like, and that because of people like them the Heights were now referred to as the crack capital of the nation. He penalized people who fell in with gangs and drugs, and without any further explanation transitioned into how drugs were ruining the United States. 

And now, in smaller communities, too, crack is striking with swift fury, From rural woodlands to shady suburbs, prairie townships to Southern hamlets, no community seems immune. The roster of the infected reads like a roll-call of Middle America itself: Roanoke, Va.; Seaford, Del.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; Cheyenne, Wyo.; Sacramento, Calif.; Portland, Ore. Fort Wayne, Ind., once known as the City of Churches, is now home to an estimated 70 crack houses, causing law-enforcement personnel to christen it ''the crack capital of Indiana.'' - Massing (1989)

Statements like that, after degrading an entire section of the city, come across as a call to action. This influenced Law Enforcement’s opinion of the people they were working to arrest, and created a divide between the public themselves - establishing a class divide. Michael Massing was one of many very loud voices of the time, using his platform and influence to point a finger at a specific community of people and place a target on them. He was essentially holding a megaphone up and saying, ‘Hey! Look at those young black boys— they're the reason this city is suffering! Get 'em!’ You know... instead of pointing out that if those neighborhoods had been properly funded, and the people hadn't been redlined into them by banks, and social emotional support had been offered to these neighborhoods— no one would be on street corners boasting their Scotty prices just to get by.

References

C-Span. (1989, September 5). Presidential address on national drug policy. C-SPAN.org. https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/presidential-address-on-national-drug-policy/97720

Marketplace, U. H. (2019, March 26). 30 years ago, George H.W. Bush held up a bag of crack on live TV. Where’d he get it? WHYY. https://whyy.org/articles/30-years-ago-george-hw-bush-held-up-a-bag-of-crack-on-live-tv-whered-he-get-it/

Cowen, A. L. (1989, February 27). THE MEDIA BUSINESS; New York Post Goes to Sundays. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/business/the-media-business-new-york-post-goes-to-sundays.html 

Massing, M. (1989, October 1). CRACK’S DESTRUCTIVE SPRINT ACROSS AMERICA. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/01/magazine/crack-s-destructive-sprint-across-america.html

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section One | Policing i: Overpolicing and Racism

The United States' deadliest domestic threat indeed was crack cocaine - but not in the way one would expect; the war on drugs was not one the American people won and wore like a badge of glory, the sorrowful years only bore the price tag and body count of one. The war on drugs did not end with Richard Nixen and his eradication efforts, nor did it end with Ronald Reagan and his vilification of substance abuse, and it certainly did not end when George H.W. Bush took office in 1989 and demonized people suffering with addiction.

In the time before Bush, there was Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who created and massively perpetuated the War on Drugs. This was before crack cocaine, before Bush militarized police and declared war on crack, but still it set the framework for what was to come. The Nixon Campaign is who started the war on drugs, coming in during the Vietnam war - and continued to utilize the tried and true method of creating drug laws to target minorities within this country. In the 1870s it was anti-opium laws that targeted Chinese immigrants, in the 1910s anti-cannabis laws targeted Mexican Americans, and Nixon designed the war on drugs to target Black people and anti-war hippies (Dholakia, 2021). The statement is not speculative or an opinion, it was revealed by John Ehrlichman in a 1994 article who at the time was Nixon’s domestic-policy adviser.

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. - Baum (2016)

Law-enforcement changed from then on; though reform of those laws were attempted by President Jimmy Carter during his presidency - specifically advocating for the decriminalization of cannabis (though he did not support other drug usage like heroin). Jimmy Carter also implemented treatment programs for addicts, understanding that people addicted to drugs were not the people needing to be penalized - and focused his law enforcement and legislations to be on drug traffickers and organized crime groups (Carter, 1977). Though much progress made by him was later rolled over by Ronald Reagan and his contributions to the war on drugs.

Reagan created the Anti-Drug Abuse Act Legislation during his presidency, which established mandatory minimum sentencing for drug related offences. “importantly resulted in the creation of a disparity of 100:1 for crimes related to crack versus powdered cocaine” (UMICH Department of History). There is a difference between Crack Cocaine and Cocaine, which was perpetuated by not only its physical properties but also by the socioeconomic status of its buyers. Cocaine in its powdered form was more expensive than its rock-like counterpart, Crack Cocaine. Crack Cocaine, due to its cheapness was more popular within low socioeconomic areas - whilst Cocaine was more likely to be used by people of high socioeconomic status. 

… powdered cocaine was significantly more expensive, and therefore used by predominantly upper-class white Americans- individuals that were far less likely to be policed in the forefront and further improbable to receive harsh punishment if they were charged with a drug-related crime. The 1986 bill created minimum sentencing laws with a 100:1 disparity between powder and crack cocaine, supported by untrue claims that crack is more dangerous and addictive, while there is pharmacologically no difference in effects between the two forms. - University of Michigan, Department of History

The war on Crack Cocaine failed, but more importantly the American people were failed by those who swore an oath to protect them. Addiction is still prevalent, and a new age is dawning and it is our job to ensure that what happened in the 1980s never happens again. During a time where many Americans were struggling with addiction, whether it was their own or someone they knew, diversity could have improved upon and influenced the situation— both at an individual level and a systemic— rather than utilizing the ideals and beliefs of solely privileged caucasian congressmen.

‘But— Getting crack cocaine off the streets was a good thing! ... Right?’ When taking the phrase at face value... Yeah! Sure, it sounds amazing that the government wanted to help protect its civilians from harmful substances and prevent addiction. Creating mental health resources, making healthcare and physicians affordable so people do not have to resort to self-medicating, and creating a support network to keep not only drugs off of the streets but also people— there is endless potential for positive reform! However noble the statements from the government at the time, it did not accomplish helping who it was claiming to be for - the people. The presidential address, though thinly veiled, was just as dividing to the members of the public.

References

C-Span. (1989, September 5). Presidential address on national drug policy. C-SPAN.org. https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/presidential-address-on-national-drug-policy/97720

Marketplace, U. H. (2019, March 26). 30 years ago, George H.W. Bush held up a bag of crack on live TV. Where’d he get it? WHYY. 

Hsu, H. (2022, November 14). Jamel Shabazz’s poignant images of “A Time Before Crack.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/jamel-shabazzs-poignant-images-of-a-time-before-crack

Dholakia, Nazish. Fifty years ago today, President Nixon declared the war on drugs. 

Baum, D. (2016). Legalize it all. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

Mosley, T. (2023, July 13). Why the crack cocaine epidemic hit Black communities “first and worst.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1186778651/crack-cocaine-epidemic-when-crack-was-king-donovan-x-ramsey

Drug abuse message to the Congress. | The American Presidency Project. (n.d.). https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/drug-abuse-message-the-congress

Fifty years ago today, President Nixon declared the war on drugs. (2025b, June 10). Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/news/fifty-years-ago-today-president-nixon-declared-the-war-on-drugsThe Buyers - A social history of America’s most popular drugs | Drug Wars | FRONTLINE | PBS. (2015, November 18). https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/socialhistory.html

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section One | Policing ii: Militarization of Police

It was during this epidemic that Police Departments were gaining a significant amount of funding from the government and a fastly growing power over the people. Battering rams, tear gas, and other heavy artillery were becoming increasingly common to find in the arsenal of a sheriff’s office. The budget that George H.W. Bush created disproportionately funded officers and law enforcement as a whole, making military grade gear accessible to any everyday patrolman and bringing SWAT in on many of their drug investigations. 

In the winter of 1985 the Los Angeles Police Department (lapd) unveiled a signature new weapon in the city’s drug war. With Chief Daryl F. Gates copiloting, the Special Weapons and Tactics Team (swat) used a fourteen-foot battering ram attached to an “armored vehicle” to break into a house in Pacoima. After tearing a “gaping hole” in one of the outside walls of the house, police found two women and three children inside, eating ice cream. swat uncovered negligible quantities of illicit drugs, and the district attorney subsequently declined to prosecute … “We don’t need new weapons to be tried out on us,” Rev. Jeffrey Joseph exclaimed. “Of all the methods that there are to arrest a person, they used a brand new toy.” —Murch, 2025.

Wedges were created, isolating communities from one another as something criminologists would later describe as a semi-martial state took effect in the United States. Typically Black and Hispanic neighborhoods were subject to such treatment; women being vilified if they were the lover of someone suspected of drug offenses, children were often scrutinized by officers, and men were frequently labeled to be gang members— whether there was merit to the belief or not. Neighborhoods of low socioeconomic status were the neighborhoods being patrolled by a militarized police, leaving the upper-class white users to have fun and party uptown with their powder coke.

Once again specific geographical areas were targeted on the regular by police, creating a class divide between the people. SWAT would go on to continue it’s expansion across the states, but specifically in Los Angeles they created the U.S.’s largest antigang unit to date. This was known as Total Resources Against Southeast Hoodlums… AKA, the abbreviation TRASH, a deplorable view of their citizens in Southeast Los Angeles and also calling them Hoodlums. However that name was changed after community outrage— rightfully so— to the Community Resources Against Southeast Hoodlums (CRASH)... So they stuck with the term Hoodlum.

At the street level, use of massive police sweeps with spectacular displays of overwhelming force embodied the city’s militarized vision of law enforcement, as did Chief Gates’s repeated calls to arms. Testifying on the one-year anniversary of the George H. W. Bush administration’s war on drugs, the lapd chief told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “the casual drug user ought to be taken out and shot.” — Murch, 2015

Of course, Los Angeles is not the only city to do “broken windows” policing— that was nationwide— but it certainly does provide light to the details other cities may never have admitted to. All the while the media was glorifying this approach and demonizing Crack Cocaine and its users. For years Nancy Reagan had been perpetuating such misinformation in her “Just Say No” clubs, claiming you could get addicted in a second of taking it. In an article for the Marshall Project, Author Donovan X. Ramsey explained what misconceptions were openly accepted by the public to help provide understanding.

The biggest misconception about crack in particular is that it was a substance like no other. … There was a tremendous amount of propaganda and misinformation around crack. And that was intentional, to really scare people. … People often said it was the most addictive thing that was ever created, that it could kill you instantly. And because people believed crack was a superdrug, then they believed that crack users were this separate class of people. —Schwartzapfel (2023)

The militarization of police during the War on Drugs— and specifically during George H.W. Bush’s presidential term—  went on to change policing in our nation forever. 

Resources

Murch, D. (2015). Crack in Los Angeles: Crisis, militarization, and Black response to the late Twentieth-Century war on drugs. In https://diversity.williams.edu/. Williams College. https://diversity.williams.edu/davis-center/files/2015/05/Crack-in-Los-Angeles-Crisis-Militarization-and-Black-Response-to-the-Late-Twentieth-Century-War-on-Drugs.pdfSchwartzapfel, B. (2023, November 6). ‘When Crack Was King’ tells how a superdrug shaped the U.S. justice system. The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/11/06/crack-cocaine-when-crack-was-king-ramsey-interview

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section One | Policing iii: Field Decisions

Los Angeles was not the only city to have such a drastic change in decision making, as I said, there were many… many others. Like when Philadelphia bombed a community advocacy program that protested against racial inequality and environmental injustices on street corners and in front of different Philadelphia organizations. Police often arrested members of this group during said protests, and in March of 1976 seven MOVE members were returning from their stay in jail. 

… police were called to their residence, claiming they were responding to a disturbance of peace complaint. A scuffle ensued, and while MOVE member Janine was trying to protect her husband, Phil, from being beaten by police, she was grabbed and thrown to the ground while clutching her three-week-old baby, Life Africa, in her arms. Janine was stomped on by police until she was nearly unconscious, and Baby Life was crushed to death. No officer was ever charged with any crime.— Black Art Story (2024)

In the aftermath of that, MOVE had to relocate to a different home in the city. They created a fortress with bunkers inside and on the roof— the latter of which they would broadcast their messages and protests day-in and day-out from speakers up above. Police responded to a myriad of calls, ranging from child endangerment to disturbing the peace. Several attempts to remove the organization by police were met with aggressive resistance from MOVE members. However in 1985, the city cut off power, trash, and water whilst police went to carry out arrest warrants by any means necessary. SWAT and police evacuated the surrounding neighborhood. Police were willing to starve out the people waiting inside, but they… did not wait long enough for that to happen, nor did they wait for any type of surrender or peacemaking.

This is a point in history that marks a change in how law enforcement approaches protesters, pacifists, and anyone who disagreed with societal standards. In the following day; SWAT shot over 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the home, then five fire trucks pumped water into the basement of the home to attempt to flood the MOVE members out, tear gas was thrown in through the windows to try and flush the members out, again SWAT began to attempt to blast holes in the adjoined houses, all while MOVE members were hiding in the basement holding up the children above the rising water level, and finally the city dropped a c-4 bomb onto the home. “Eleven MOVE members, including John Africa and five children, were killed. One adult, Ramona, and one child, Birdie (13), survived the bombing but were severely burned” (Black Art Story, 2024). 

Such a horrific event makes one wonder if this event had taken place a decade earlier or a decade later, would police have responded the same way? Would officers on the field have made the same decisions in the field if a different demographic of people were in the home? Would the officers of Philadelphia decide to bomb a neighborhood with C4 and Tovex if it was 1975 or if it was 1995?

Though this is an extreme example of decisions that would be made on the field by law enforcement, it shows just how far and how wrong the impulses of officers were allowed to be. This is one of the many events which set the tone for policing in decades to come.

Resources

Blackartstory.org Editors. (2024, January 3). Revisit: MOVE BOMBING (1985). Black Art Story. https://blackartstory.org/2024/01/03/revisit-move-bombing-1985/West Philadelphia Collaborative History - MOVE on Osage Avenue. (n.d.). https://collaborativehistory.gse.upenn.edu/stories/move-osage-avenue

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section One | Policing iv: Vulnerable People i

During the crack cocaine epidemic, LGBTQ+ individuals faced significant discrimination and harassment from law enforcement. Police often targeted gay and transgender communities, viewing them as associated with the drug culture. Raids on gay bars and drag show nights at clubs were common, with police using tactics such as "no-knock raids" and excessive force. Evidence suggests that police saw the LGBTQ+ community as a threat, associate them with drug abuse, and thus justified harsh treatment. Transgender individuals, especially transgender women of color, faced elevated levels of violence and police brutality.

The emphasis on militarized policing tactics and the focus on criminalizing drug users during this time further endangered LGBTQ+ individuals, as many used drugs to cope with the stress and discrimination they faced. The lack of police protection and support for LGBTQ+ victims of hate crimes and drug-related offenses was evident. This treatment drove many LGBTQ+ individuals underground, making it difficult to accurately assess the full impact of the crack epidemic on this community. However, as the HIV/AIDS epidemic emerged and the crack cocaine epidemic took hold, public opinion shifted dramatically. The intersection of crack cocaine use and the HIV/AIDS crisis in LGBTQ+, African American communities led to the belief that African Americans, particularly ones out-of-the-closet, were the primary demographic impacted by crack cocaine use and AIDS.

In the 1980s, the intersection of people who use crack cocaine and the HIV/AIDS epidemic propelled in the American psyche the idea that people who use crack cocaine in the U.S. is primarily associated with black communities in major metropolitan areas. During that time, as the prevalence of HIV was increasing in American cities, positive correlations were found between sexual risk-taking behaviors and crack cocaine use in black adolescent populations. - Goulian et al. (2022)

After the 1980s, the stigma attached to people who use crack cocaine and the AIDS epidemic continued to disproportionately affect African American and queer communities. The intersection of these crises led to a lasting impact on the health and social welfare of these populations. Today, while drug addiction affects all races, the legacy of this era has left the misconception that LGBTQ+ people experience HIV diagnoses and poorer drug treatment outcomes compared to white individuals. Addressing this requires acknowledging and challenging the racist roots of the war on drugs and the historical neglect of public health in these communities. It is crucial to develop culturally affirming, community-based treatment programs and social policies that can reduce the persistent, devastating impact of people affected by addiction and HIV.

As the epidemic progressed, it became clear that it was not just gay men, but also women, transgender individuals, and people of color who were disproportionately at risk— Much the same as it was for the War on Drugs. As the crack cocaine epidemic and HIV/AIDS crisis unfolded, queer people were disproportionately targeted and criminalized by law enforcement. The same police actions that terrorized poor communities of color hardest hit by the crack crisis also victimized queer individuals. Hate crimes, raids on queer spaces, and discriminatory policing practices increased. For instance, police often used the pretext of drug activity to raid gay bars and bathhouses, leading to the arrest of queer people who were then vulnerable to HIV exposure and stigma (The HIV/AIDS Crisis – Redline Collection: A New Play, n.d.).

Hardly any of that hysteria was true, however the only demographic of people to steadily stand up for HIV/AIDS victims during the 1980s-1990s were women, lesbians to be specific (Schneider & Stoller, 1995).

It was lesbians' consideration and care for their community during this time which led to L being the first letter in the communities abbreviation. Despite the sex wars and controversies within feminist movements, it was the compassion and action of lesbians that shone through. By standing with and caring for those most in need when many turned away, lesbians embodied the true spirit of community and solidarity. 

Moreover, queer communities faced a lack of police protection and support. When queer people became victims of hate crimes or faced drug-related issues, police often responded with indifference, prejudice, or even hostility. This climate of fear and mistrust made it difficult for queer individuals, especially those of color and from marginalized backgrounds, to access healthcare, report crimes, or seek assistance when needed.

Resources

Goulian, A., Jauffret-Roustide, M., Dambélé, S., Singh, R., & Fullilove, R. E. (2022). A cultural and political difference: comparing the racial and social framing of population crack cocaine use between the United States and France. Harm Reduction Journal, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00625-5

The HIV/AIDS Crisis – Redline Collection: a new play. (n.d.). https://publish.illinois.edu/redline-collection/the-hiv-aids-epidemic/Schneider, B., & Stoller, N. E. (1995). Women resisting AIDS : feminist strategies of empowerment. In Temple University Press eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA26595949

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section One | Policing iv: Vulnerable People ii

America’s most vulnerable people, our children, became yet another group of our society to fall victim to the War on Drugs. Despite being too young to provide informed consent or advocate for their own needs, they found themselves being policed by American laws that offered them none of the benefits or autonomy extended to adults. What child knows how to exercise their right to remain silent, or their miranda rights? 

The recent statistics paint a grim picture: over 1.5 million Americans aged 12 and older, including a staggering 913,000 who met the criteria for cocaine dependence or abuse, continue to grapple with the ravages of addiction. Furthermore, the opioid crisis, which claimed the lives of nearly 28,000 individuals in 2014 alone, often involves the deadly practice of mixing cocaine with opioids like heroin or fentanyl (The Crack Cocaine Epidemic Everyone Forgot About, 2016). While the war on drugs was waged under the guise of protecting the innocent, it is the most vulnerable among us who have paid the highest price, with precious young lives being lost and families being torn apart.

As the crack cocaine epidemic swept through poor urban communities in the 1980s, the foster care system found itself woefully unprepared to handle the influx of children impacted by their parents' substance abuse. Lack of funding, under-qualification in their staff, along with insensitivity all built up into horrible environments for children to live in. The foster care system, ill-equipped to handle the unprecedented influx and lacking in adequate resources and support services, failed to provide the safety, stability, and positive outcomes these children desperately needed (Rodriguez et al., 2018). 

Instead of investing in family residential substance abuse treatment or other supportive strategies aimed at preserving families, thousands of children were hurriedly removed from their homes and communities. Parents grappling with substance abuse were predominantly met with criminalization, rather than being granted access to recovery programs, resources, and support that could have enabled them to remain intact as families or reunite with their children. 

Despite the ever-growing need for family-centered interventions, the resources for these agencies needed in order to facilitate those types of family plans were rare and hard to come by. The foster care system, unprepared for the magnitude and complexity of the crisis, found itself ill-equipped to adequately protect and nurture the vulnerable young lives victimized by the War on Drugs.

Resources

The Crack Cocaine Epidemic Everyone Forgot About. (2016, October 14). Clearbrook Treatment Centers. https://clearbrook.banyantreatmentcenter.com/news/cocaine-addiction-forgotten/Rodriguez, J., Kohomban, J., & Haskins, R. (2018, January 31). The foster care system was unprepared for the last drug epidemic—let’s not repeat history. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-foster-care-system-was-unprepared-for-the-last-drug-epidemic-lets-not-repeat-history/

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Two | The Courts i: Discrepancies in Drug Crime Sentences

In the 35 years since Reagan's discriminatory law, the injustice has persisted. Despite some progress, Black people remain disproportionately targeted - 77.1% of federal crack cocaine sentences today are served by African Americans, compared to merely 6.3% by Whites (Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, 2021). This disparity is not only unjust but deeply harmful to Black communities. Courts across the nation have long grappled with the repercussions of systemic and individual biases that permeate the justice system, with drug crime sentencing disparities being a glaring example of this shortcoming in cultural competence. Courts are profoundly impacted by a lack of cultural competence and biases at both systemic and individual levels, with the discriminatory 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, enacted in 1986, exemplifies how legislative decisions can perpetuate racial inequities (Erickson & Korte, 2022).

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, "An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." The 35-year-old disparity in cocaine sentencing is undeniably unjust. It's time for the Senate to heed the call for change, to end this injustice, and to move America towards a more equitable future - and the amendment made in 2010 was only one step forward.

Resources

Madeo. (n.d.). Oct. 27, 1986 | Anti-Drug Abuse Act creates racially biased 100 to 1 Crack/Powder disparity. https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/oct/27Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights. (2021, November 30). It’s Time to End the Racist and Unjustified Sentencing Disparity Between Crack and Powder Cocaine. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. https://civilrights.org/blog/its-time-to-end-the-racist-and-unjustified-sentencing-disparity-between-crack-and-powder-cocaine/

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Two | The Courts ii: Bail

During this time, bail practices in courts were significantly influenced by a lack of cultural competence and biases, with disparities impacting individuals accused of drug crimes, particularly those involving crack cocaine. 

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 gave courts broad discretion to detain defendants pending trial for certain offenses, including federal drug offenses carrying a penalty of ten years or more. This allowed judges to imprison individuals at the outset of legal proceedings based on the severity of the charges alone, rather than individual risk factors. This disproportionately affected Black defendants, as they were more likely to be charged with crack cocaine offenses.

States like Missouri adopted harsh policies, such as no bail for persons accused of selling drugs. This policy, driven by drug war hysteria and racial biases, presumed guilt and incarcerated individuals pre-trial solely based on the accusation of drug sales, with no consideration for individual flight risk or dangerousness. This policy had a huge impact on impoverished and minority communities, as they were more likely to be accused of street-level drug sales (Porter et al., 2011).

Resources

Porter, N. D., Wright, V., Ph. D., & The Sentencing Project. (2011). Cracked justice. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/Cracked-Justice.pdfWood, J. & Federal Judicial Center. (2022). The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (Fourth Edition) [Book]. Federal Judicial Center. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/materials/57/The%20Bail%20Reform%20Act%20of%201984-Fourth%20Edition.pdf

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Two | The Courts iii: Discrepancies Towards Different Socioeconomic Statuses

During the 1980s and 1990s, the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted low-income communities and communities of color. Nixon's advisor, John Ehrlichman, admitted in 1994 that the War on Drugs was created to target "Black people and anti-war hippies" (Baum, 2016). This racial bias in drug policies continued and intensified under Reagan's and Bush's administrations. In 1986, Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, establishing a 100:1 disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine - a disparity that disproportionately affected African Americans, as crack was more common in low-income communities (UMICH Department of History, n.d.). This targeting of marginalized communities had devastating consequences, leading to mass incarceration and the destruction of families and communities. The racial disparities in drug policies and sentencing have persisted and continue to negatively impact communities of color to this day.

Systemically, wealthier defendants often receive more lenient sentences and better access to resources, such as private lawyers. Wealthier defendants, predominantly white, can afford private attorneys who often negotiate better plea bargains and sentences (The Socioeconomic Impact of the War on Drugs – Michigan Journal of Economics, 2023). In contrast, low-income defendants, disproportionately people of color, rely on overworked public defenders, leading to longer incarcerations for similar crimes. This economic disparity in legal representation perpetuates cycles of poverty and discriminatory outcomes. In contrast, impoverished defendants, disproportionately from minority groups, rely on overburdened public defenders and face longer incarceration times for similar crimes. This economic disparity in the legal system perpetuates cycles of poverty and discrimination.

Individually, judges and jurors may hold implicit biases against lower-income individuals, viewing their circumstance as a character flaw rather than a product of societal injustices. Further, Judges and jurors may subconsciously view low-income individuals as less credible or more criminally prone due to their socioeconomic status (The Socioeconomic Impact of the War on Drugs – Michigan Journal of Economics, 2023). This bias can manifest in microaggressions during trials, such as interrupting pro se defendants more frequently or dismissing their testimonies as less valid. These attitudes contribute to harsh sentences for marginalized defendants.

Similarly, prosecutors may harbor preconceived notions about certain communities, such as believing they are inherently more prone to criminality. This mindset can influence charging decisions, plea bargaining processes, and sentencing recommendations.

Resources

The socioeconomic impact of the War on Drugs – Michigan Journal of Economics. (2023, November 27). https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2023/11/27/the-socioeconomic-impact-of-the-war-on-drugs/

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Two | The Courts iv: the Death-Penalty

Systemic and individual biases in the courts during the drug war era led to glaring disparities in sentencing and capital prosecution, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities. The racial and socioeconomic divide between drug users and sellers translated into harsher penalties for the poor and people of color. This was evident in the 100:1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, and the higher rates of death penalty prosecutions in counties with larger African American populations. The criminal justice system's lack of cultural competence and implicit biases shaped who faced the ultimate punishment.

The crack epidemic and War on Drugs underscored racial disparities in the criminal justice system, particularly in capital punishment. Despite crack and cocaine's identical pharmacology, a 100:1 sentencing disparity punished crack users, predominantly black and poor, far harsher than powder cocaine users, mainly white and affluent. Federal "drug kingpin" death penalty provisions in 1988 disproportionately targeted African Americans. Attorney General approvals of capital prosecutions under Clinton further validated these racial biases, with 29 out of 37 approved defendants being black. These facts illuminate how the system's lack of cultural competence and implicit biases shaped who suffered the ultimate punishment during the drug war years (Racial Disparities in Federal Death Penalty Prosecutions 1988 – 1994, 1994).

The crack cocaine epidemic-exposed deep rooted biases in the courts, with deadly consequences. Predominantly black, low-income communities bore the brunt, with capital prosecution becoming a weapon of oppression.

Resources

Racial Disparities in Federal Death Penalty Prosecutions 1988 – 1994. (1994, March 1). Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/research/analysis/reports/in-depth/racial-disparities-in-federal-death-penalty-prosecutions-1988-1994

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Two | The Courts v: Vulnerable People i

During the crack epidemic and the War on Drugs, the courts also plays a significant role in perpetuating injustices against LGBTQ+ individuals. Biases, prejudices, and a lack of understanding of LGBTQ+ experiences led to skewed interpretations of laws and policies. During the crack epidemic and the War on Drugs, the courts often fell short in upholding the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ individuals, reflecting the broader discrimination and prejudice faced by this community. 

In the prison system, transgender individuals like Dee Farmer faced egregious injustices; despite identifying as female and being known as transgender, Farmer was placed in a general male population and subsequently raped. However, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Farmer v. Brennan (1994) marked a crucial step in recognizing transgender rights and establishing a legal standard for prison officials' liability. The Court ruled that deliberately ignoring a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate, such as sexual assault, violated the Eighth Amendment, paving the way for future protections.

Court decisions during this period largely reflected broader societal conflicts between LGBTQ+ rights and mainstream acceptance. To fully understand the drug war's impact on vulnerable communities, it's essential to examine how the legal system addressed the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals.

Resources 

Farmer v. Brennan. (n.d.). Oyez LII Supreme Court Resources Justia Supreme Court Center. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/92-7247

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Two | The Courts v: Vulnerable People ii

During the crack cocaine epidemic and the war on drugs, racial disparities in juvenile justice became increasingly apparent. Although drug law offenses accounted for only 7% of juvenile delinquency cases in 1989, the impact on youth of color was disproportionate in comparison to caucasian teenagers. Males, who made up 81% of juvenile delinquency cases, were more likely to face drug charges, with black males overrepresented (Juvenile Court Statistics 1989 | Office of Justice Programs, n.d.). This mirrored the adult criminal justice system's focus on punishing crack cocaine offenses prevalent in minority communities. 

The juvenile murder rate rose between 1980 and 1994, with increases primarily driven by murders committed by non-family members using firearms. During this period: homicides of black juveniles increased at a faster rate than those of white juveniles- particularly murders by acquaintances and strangers using firearms, black homicide victims were more likely to be killed by a firearm than white victims, with the disparity growing as the juvenile murder rate increased (Juvenile Court Statistics 1989 | Office of Justice Programs, n.d.).

Informal handling of cases decreased, while waivers to criminal court rose, indicating a shift away from rehabilitation and towards criminalization of youth, especially youth of color, during the crack epidemic. This disparity in treatment and outcomes underscored the system's racial and gender biases, exacerbating the epidemic's destructive impact on marginalized youth. The juvenile justice system's response to the crack crisis ultimately failed to protect and rehabilitate vulnerable young people.

Resources

Juvenile Court Statistics 1989 | Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/juvenile-court-statistics-1989

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Three | Corrections i: Geography of Prisons

During the crack epidemic, the punitive approach in the War on Drugs led to a surge in incarceration rates, disproportionately impacting lower socioeconomic areas. Instead of treating the “War on Drugs” as a public health crisis, it was treated as a punitive approach against lower socioeconomic areas. Incarceration rates following Ronald Reagan’s presidency went from 50,ooo in 1980 to over 400,000 at the end of his tenure (Vera, 2025). The criminal justice system's lack of cultural competence and individual biases within prisons exacerbated disparities faced by marginalized communities during this time. 

A study revealed that while almost 2/3 of crack users in the US were white or Hispanic, 84.5% of those convicted for crack possession were black, while 10.3% were white and 5.2% were Hispanic. Similarly, of those convicted for crack trafficking in 1994, 88.3% were black, while 4.1% were white and 7.1% were Hispanic. - Public Broadcasting Service, 2015

An overview of how prisons were affected by cultural incompetence, particularly related to geographic discrepancies and the unique needs of women, is crucial to understanding the broader injustice of the drug war's impact on vulnerable populations. Despite similar crack usage rates across races, the criminal justice system's biases led to profoundly disproportionate incarceration and conviction rates for Black Americans during the crack epidemic. The current practice of counting incarcerated individuals, predominantly people of color from urban areas, as residents of rural districts where prisons are located, skewed political power and diluted the political influence of their home communities. 

The rapid rise in female incarceration rates, driven largely by the War on Drugs, necessitates an examination of the impacts on women and their families. With over 10 percent of women prisoners serving time for drug offenses, and 70 percent of these mothers, addressing the consequences of imprisoning mothers for drug offenses is crucial (War on Drugs and the Incarceration of Mothers | Office of Justice Programs, n.d.). Current research has primarily focused on incarcerated men, requiring a shift to assess the effects on women and their dependent children. The costs extend beyond financial expenditures to the immediate and long-term harm inflicted on family units and child well-being. Policymakers must consider and study these devastating impacts when developing sentencing policies.

This injustice in the census process exacerbated inequalities stemming from mass incarceration and felony disenfranchisement. To address this imbalance and ensure fair representation, prison populations should be counted based on their home addresses prior to incarceration.

Resources

(2025, June 10). Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/news/fifty-years-ago-today-president-nixon-declared-the-war-on-drugs

War on Drugs and the Incarceration of Mothers | Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/war-drugs-and-incarceration-mothers

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Three | Corrections ii: Medical Issues

In the era of mass incarceration, the US prison system has grappled with providing adequate healthcare, particularly for mentally ill inmates, while balancing the conflicting priorities of punishment and treatment. 

The 1976 Estelle v. Gamble case revealed systemic failures in prisoner healthcare during the 1970s, with J.W. Gamble received inconsistent and inadequate treatment for a serious back he sustained in his prison workplace injury over five months - where he spent a lot of time in solitary confinement for ‘refusal to work’. Despite repeated pleas and consistent symptoms, prison doctors and staff demonstrated a deliberate indifference to Gamble's debilitating condition, resulting in prolonged suffering and displacement in solitary confinement. This ruling revealed the urgent need for adequate medical attention and treatment for prisoners, setting a legal precedent to protect inmates' constitutional rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment (Estelle V. Gamble, 1976). The decision highlighted the prevalent issues in corrections' medical care during that era, which disproportionately impacted incarcerated individuals and exacerbated existing disparities in healthcare access. This context can inform the immersive exhibit, emphasizing the importance of advocating for prisoners' rights and improving the treatment of custodial populations.

Despite improvements since 1976 Estelle v. Gamble ruling, healthcare in US prisons still faces unique challenges due to the conflicting priorities of punishment and treatment. Physicians often struggle with dual loyalties, with institutional policies hindering optimal patient care, especially for mentally ill inmates. The mass incarceration era has seen doctors unwittingly complicit, requiring them to now advocate for systemic reforms to genuinely improve prisoner health outcomes. Despite improvements since 1976 Estelle v. Gamble ruling, physicians often find themselves caught between these dueling objectives, with institutional policies and resource limitations impeding optimal patient care. Lack of cultural competency in corrections has led to disparities in healthcare outcomes and access for inmates and communities of color.

The disproportionate imprisonment of marginalized communities has exacerbated these challenges, as the lack of cultural competency among staff hampers the delivery of culturally affirming and effective treatment. To truly address these issues, prisons must invest in diversity training and workforce initiatives to bridge this cultural divide and ensure that care is tailored to the unique needs of each inmate. Additionally, policymakers must prioritize mental health resources and evidence-based practices to promote genuine healing and rehabilitation in correctional settings (Allen, et. al 2010). By doing so, the US can begin to mitigate the destructive impacts of incarceration on the wellbeing of both inmates and their communities.

Resources

Allen, S. A., Wakeman, S. E., Cohen, R. L., & Rich, J. D. (2010, December 1). Physicians in US prisons in the era of mass incarceration. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3204660/

Weiner, J., Anno, B. J., & U.S. Supreme Court. (1992). The crisis in correctional health care: The impact of the National Drug Control Strategy on Correctional Health Services. https://www.acponline.org/sites/default/files/acp-policy-library/policies/crisis_in_correctional_health_care_impact_of_national_drug_control_strategy_on_correctional_health_services_1992.pdfEstelle v. Gamble. (1976). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-929

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Three | Corrections iii: Private Prisons

The privatization of prisons, which was driven largely by the War on Drugs, has led to a lack of adequate oversight and accountability. With around 20% of prisoners currently incarcerated for drug charges, and over a million more arrests each year, private prisons have become a multi-billion dollar industry, fueled by the US government's punitive drug policies (Basti, 2022). The focus on profits over rehabilitation has resulted in subpar conditions, inadequate rehabilitation programs, and a lack of transparency in these facilities.

Domestically, the war on drugs has created the privatized, for-profit prison system, with about 20% of people in prison right now convicted of drug charges, and 1 million more being arrested for the same reason every year (Prison Policy Initiative). And, of course, police and corrections spending have expanded to meet these needs (Urban Institute). These are the kinds of things that billions, if not trillions, in taxpayers’ dollars have gone to, all in a vain attempt to stop people from getting high. Is it worth it?– The Socioeconomic Impact of the War on Drugs - Michigan Journal of Economics, (2023)

Private prisons often prioritize cost-cutting measures to maximize profits, which can lead to understaffing, low pay for employees, and inadequate training. “The final step will be when they realize that prosecuting those who are suffering from the harmful effects of more dangerous drugs is not only pointless, but cruel and unjust, and perpetuates a system of war, violence, disease, and death” (Michigan Journal of Economics, 2023). This combination of factors can result in poor standards of care for inmates, increased violence among the population, and a higher prevalence of prisoner misconduct. On top of those risks, the use of private prisons has been linked to longer sentences and fewer opportunities for early release when compared to state-run facilities, further exacerbating the issues stemming from excessive incarceration.

Resources

The socioeconomic impact of the War on Drugs – Michigan Journal of Economics. (2023, November 27). https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2023/11/27/the-socioeconomic-impact-of-the-war-on-drugs/Basti, K. G. a. V. (2022, November 2). Capitalizing on mass incarceration: U.S. growth in private prisons. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Three | Corrections iv: Transgender Peoples

The lack of cultural competence in corrections, exacerbated by systemic and individual biases, significantly impacts the treatment and safety of transgender people within U.S. prisons. The current system fails to adequately address the unique needs and vulnerabilities of transgender prisoners, leading to a cycle of discrimination, violence, along with physical and psychological harm.

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality published a report on the topic of transgender inmates in 2018. In order to gain a frame of reference regarding this topic we can look at what author, Ash Olli Kulak introduced Locked Away in SEG “For Their Own Protection”: How Congress Gave Federal Corrections the Discretion to House Transgender (Trans) Inmates in Gender-Inappropriate Facilities and Solitary Confinement with the following introduction.

Incarcerated transgender people face a unique predicament the day they arrive at a corrections facility. First, they are processed by corrections officials and are forced to undergo strip searches, often in front of both staff members and other Inmates. It may take weeks of waiting in processing before officials are able to determine the gendered facility in which they will reside. They are usually sent to facilities according to their current genital configuration, where they await transphobic-motivated violence and degrading administrative procedures. must choose—if they have the choice—between the endless abuses in the general population or extreme isolation in protective custody, which is usually implemented by placing them in solitary confinement or maximum security (max) units. The damaging effects of continuous violence and isolation seriously deteriorate trans prisoners’ quality of life. - Kulak (2018)

Systemically, the focus on punitive measures over rehabilitation, as evidenced by legislation like the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, results in transgender individuals being sentenced to incarceration without consideration for the heightened risks they face in prison. One such case being Farmer v. Brennan:

Dee Farmer, a biological male, underwent estrogen therapy, received silicone breast implants and underwent unsuccessful sex reassignment surgery. Farmer later in life was convicted and sentenced to prison on federal criminal charges. Prison medical personnel diagnosed Farmer as a transsexual. Farmer was generally kept separate from the general male population, in part because of Farmer’s misconduct, but also because of safety concerns. Farmer was transferred to the U.S. Penitentiary Terre Haute and placed in the general male population in accordance with prison policy. Within two weeks, a cellmate allegedly beat and raped Farmer. Farmer sued in federal district court, alleging that prison officials deliberately and indifferently failed to protect a prisoner. - Oyez, (1993)

This blindspot perpetuates the placement of transgender people in facilities based solely on their current genital configuration, exposing them to Transphobic-motivated violence and degradation. The default response of isolated segregation units, often in solitary confinement or maximum security, further compounds the psychological distress and trauma experienced by transgender prisoners.

Individual biases and lack of training among corrections officials contribute to this crisis. In her specific case, prison officials failed to protect a transfemme inmate from assault and rape, demonstrating a deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of transgender inmates. However, Farmer was not just fighting for her own justice but also the wellness and safety of any other transgender people who would find themselves in prison in the future. The courts disagreed with her lawsuit however and came to the conclusion that, “ The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials, noting that Farmer never complained or expressed any safety concerns prior to the incident. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed” (Oyez, 1992). The minimal protections offered by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) are undermined by the broad discretion given to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and private corrections corporations, which often results in inadequate or ineffective intervention.

The absence of culturally competent policies and practices in corrections leads to a devastating impact on the mental health and overall well-being of transgender prisoners.

Resources

Farmer v. Brennan. (1992). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/92-7247

Longo, C. (2017). Transgender rights in public prisons [Policy Brief]. SIENAcollege Community Policy Institute.Kulak, A. O. (2018). Locked Away in SEG “For Their Own Protection”: How Congress gave federal corrections the discretion to house Transgender (Trans) inmates in Gender-Inappropriate Facilities and Solitary Confinement. In Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality (pp. 5–22). https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse/vol6/iss2/6

[forgeflourishflow]

A Disparate System and its Unjustified Justice: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic

Section Three | Corrections v: Male Corrections Officers in Female Prisons

The presence of male corrections officers in female prisons, driven by systemic and individual biases, perpetuates a culture of impunity and vulnerability for the women incarcerated. The overrepresentation of male staff, with estimates ranging from 41% in state prisons to 70% in federal prisons, exposes female inmates to a heightened risk of sexual abuse and harassment (Flesher, 2007).

Systemically, the lack of tailored policies to address the unique needs and vulnerabilities of female prisoners allows cross-gender supervision to persist. Prisons vary widely in their policies regarding the level of observation and searches conducted by male guards on female inmates, ranging from casual observation to invasive strip and body cavity searches. These policies, which are often humiliating for all inmates, can be particularly traumatizing for female prisoners, a significant percentage of whom have histories of sexual or physical abuse (Men Guarding Women: An Analysis of the Employment of Male Correction Officers in Prisons for Women | Office of Justice Programs, n.d.). The presence of male guards intensifies the frequency of sexual abuse, with women comprising 46% of sexual abuse victims in state prisons despite making up only 7% of the prison population (Flesher, 2007).

Individual biases among male officers, compounded by a lack of adequate training, contribute to the power imbalance and abuse. Female prisoners report feeling fearful of male guards, especially those with a history of abuse. The presence of male officers in positions of authority over vulnerable women creates a culture where sexual assault becomes a part of everyday life in women's prisons, with limited recourse for victims. “Because women constitute the fastest-growing segment of the United States prison pupulation, one can only expect the frequency of sexual abuse against female prisoners to rise. Nevertheless, the unfortunate truth is that in most circumstances female inmates will never have the opportunity to make their voices heard in court (Flesher, 2007).” Flyn L. Flesher wrote on this in the William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Identity back in 2006; and whether we are looking at it from the frame of 1989 or 2025 it still reigns true in prisons today.

Resources

Flesher, F. L. (2007). Cross-Gender Supervision in Prison and the Constitutional Right of Prisoners to Remain Free from Rape. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 13(3), 841. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol13/iss3/8Men Guarding Women: An analysis of the employment of male correction officers in prisons for Women | Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/men-guarding-women-analysis-employment-male-correction-officers