• No results found

Does the Black Lives Matter Movement matter? : an examination of its influence on American criminal justice reform

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Does the Black Lives Matter Movement matter? : an examination of its influence on American criminal justice reform"

Copied!
74
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Does the Black Lives Matter Movement Matter? An Examination of its Influence on American Criminal Justice Reform

Author: Mikaela Marie Burch (Student Number: 10764313)

Submitted in fulfillment a Masters in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam

Total Word Count: 22,684

Research Project: Advocacy in EU and World Politics: Who is represented (and who is not)? Semester 1: 2015-2016

Submitted on: January 29, 2016 Amsterdam, Netherlands

(2)

Burch 2

Abstract

In 2013, the highly publicized shooting of African American teen Trayvon Martin and acquittal of police officer George Zimmerman made headlines nationally around the United States. However the following similar fatal officer involved shooting of African American Michael Brown led to an increase social outcry demanding spotlight onto issues of racial injustices within the criminal justice system. The results of such frustration was the spearheading of energy and attention towards the Black Lives Matter social movement which aims to not only expose these racial injustices of the criminal justice system but to expose the broader racial social injustices throughout American society. However when looking at the movement’s calls for criminal justice reform including the halt of racially impacting police practices and wider criminal justice policies, statistics support these claims as indeed being valid. Based upon this, a relevant question to pose is to what extent these claims of racial injustice have actually made their way within criminal justice reform? This thesis finds that the movement has influenced American criminal justice reform with great deal, specifically in regards to new discussions and efforts concerning police practices, community trust building and the further recognition of the system’s differences of racial impact. Here the famous works of French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault is used as a guide to understanding how and why the Black Lives Matter calls for racial justice have embedded its way within the American criminal justice reform discourse, which compromises its discussions, focuses and practices.

(3)

Burch 3

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ... 4

II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 9

a. Discourse under Michael Foucault ... 10

b. Statements and Discursive Formations ... 11

c. Power and Knowledge ... 12

2.1. Conclusion... 14

III. METHODOLOGY ... 15

IV. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM DISOURSE PRIOR TO THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT ... 18

4.1. Maarten Hajer in the Construction of Discourses ... 18

4.2. Constructing American Criminal Justice Reform Discourse from 2000-2013 ... 19

4.3. Conclusion... 26

V. BLACK LIVES MATTER: The Movement, Foundations and Calls for Racial Justice .. 30

5.1. What does the Black Lives Matter Movement Want in Criminal Justice Reform? ... 32

a. Police Practices ... 32

b. Racial Disparities in Incarceration Numbers ... 34

5.2 Conclusion ... 35

VI. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM DISCOURSE POST ESTABLISHMET OF THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT ... 37

6.1. Criminal Justice Reform 2014-Present ... 37

6.2. Conclusion ... 43

VII. DOES THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT MATTER? AN EXAMINATION OF ITS INFLUENCE ... 46

7.1. Michael Foucault, Discourse Analysis and the Black Lives Matter Movement ... 46

7.2. Black Lives Matter within Criminal Justice Reform Discourse ... 50

7.3. Michael Foucault: Power and Knowledge of the Black Lives Matter’s Two Statements of Racial Injustice ... 57

VIII. CONCLUSIONS ... 60

(4)

Burch 4

I. INTRODUCTION

“Every time you see me, you want to mess with me”

These were the words Eric Garner told a group of New York City police officers as they approached him in July of 2014 (Sentencing Project, 2015: 3). As the officers wrestled Garner to the ground to arrest him for selling loose untaxed cigarettes, one officer placed Garner in a chokehold and maintained this pressure until Gardner pleaded for air (Sentencing Project, 2015: 3). Approximately one hour later, Garner was pronounced dead in which the New York City Medical Examiner’s Officer attributed to a combination of a chokehold, compression of his chest and poor health (Capelouto, 2014). The unarmed African American man’s death and the lack of indictment given to the involved police officers by a grand jury despite videotape evidence of the events, raised concerns regarding the practices of law enforcement (Sentencing Project, 2015: 3). However in the wake of the grief of Garner, one month later, the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, another African-American occurred in Ferguson, Missouri spearheaded attention to same issues (Sentencing Project 2015: 3). Similar to the incident of Eric Garner, the officer responsible for shooting Brown was not indicted. The events received considerable national attention from not only politicians and government officials but a growing number of outraged Americans, protesting to demand change and calling for debates about the relationship between the activities of the criminal justice system and African Americans (Sentencing Project, 2015: 3).

What followed these two deaths is the attention to a growing social movement known as ‘Black Lives Matter’ calling for criminal justice reform and using these incidences, among many others, in the view that the American criminal justice system is failing to uphold this basic truth. The movement has also called into question and demanded reform of ‘institutionalized racism’ where they feel that African Americans are disadvantaged at nearly every stage of the criminal justice system. Although this movement makes various claims relating to general societal disadvantages which African Americans face, within the scope of the movement’s concerns about the criminal justice system, a natural question to ask would be whether this movement raises legitimate concerns? When examining basic statistics from the American law enforcement practices, it shows that roughly 40% of those killed by police in recent years have been African American, when this racial group make up only 13% of the national population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). Research also shows that officers involved in such killings are rarely indicted and even much less convicted for the excessive use of force (Mckinley and

(5)

Burch 5

Baker, 2014). Moreover broader criminal justice issues outside of police activities are highlighted by the movement through statistics such as 9% of all black adults being under some form of correctional supervision compared to just under 2% of white adults (Human Rights Watch, 2010). If these recent trends were to continue, then one of every three black teenage boys can expect to go to prison in his life time in contrast with one of every seventeen white boys (Bonczar, 2003). With such statistics, it seems that the Black Lives Matter movement does indeed raise legitimate concerns, which has not gone unnoticed by government officials, politicians and a significant amount of the American general population. As a result, a useful area to then explore would be the extent to which this movement has actually influenced discussions, focuses or practices within criminal justice reform.

The study of social movements focus on how groups mobilize for the purpose of challenging inequalities in resources and statuses which are systematically reinforced by power relations (McCarthy and Zald, 1977, 1217-1218). Academics within the field have focused much attention towards the organization of large scale movements designed to alter the balance of power in societies such as within civil rights (Morris, 1984) and women’s’ rights (Mansbridge, 1986). Social movement studies allow us focus in on how these movements attempt or succeed at altering power structures in a way which may transform how work is done and who reaps benefits from it (Scully and Segal, 1999). When looking at the impacts social movements make, social movement studies highlight the effects these movements have on societies. This body of work focuses on assessing how social movements can and have resonated on institutions, individuals, cultures and political systems. Therefore, when examining in this thesis, the influence in which the Black Lives Matter movement has had on criminal justice reform discourses, this is related and well-grounded in to social movement literature.

When approaching ‘influence’ theoretically, attention must be given to the fact that this is a recent movement which has received some reform attention by officials, but it is also very much concentrated in political discussions (Eisen, 2014; Ruffin, 2015). Therefore, a theoretical approach re-conceptualizing subtle forms of influence as having a greater effect on the operations of societies and one encompassing a wider perception of what counts as factors of influence is needed. Naturally, a plausible theoretical approach can be that of a discourse analysis due to its emphasis of using various aspects including linguistics within the analyzation of discourses. ‘Discourse’ in discourse analysis is not simply understood as a simple conversation, rather it aims to understand the story of a discussion or dialogue (Hewitt, 2009: 2). Such analysis aim to expose patterns and hidden rules of how language

(6)

Burch 6

is used and narratives are created in discourses (Hewitt, 2009: 2). However discourse within the discussion of this paper should be conceptualized as a field regarding a particular topic which forms the common understanding of knowledge, social structures and discursive practices in which society operates itself under (Diaz-Bone, R. et al, 2007). Thus to influence a discourse in this sense would mean to play a major role in not only influencing what particular discussions consist of, but influencing the focuses and practices in which society seems fitting for each discourse.

Different traditions of discourse analysis are derived from different interpretations of the meaning of discourse (Mills, 1997; Torfing, 2005). Although purely linguistic traditions define discourses solely within units of written and spoken communication, other traditions define discourse as being derived and dependent on a multitude of social practices working together to construct discourse (Hewitt, 2009: 2; Hajer, 1995). However when analyzing the extent to which the Black Lives Matter movement has influenced criminal justice reform, a tradition taking into account both the linguistic aspects and social practices concerning the movement would be more effective. Innovatively, the works of French philosopher and historian, Michel Foucault have incorporated both aspects as he understood discourse to be represented by language while recognizing that the importance of social practices in the creation and aftermath of discourses (Hewitt, 2009: 2).

As for what this thesis can add to literature concerning social movements, first, there is significant need for more literature exploring the political influence of these movements. The political consequences of social movements is a newly studied academic phenomenon as scholars have begun to draw extensive attention to its realm during the first decade of this century (Amenta et al., 2010: 288). The contemporary nature of the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of the 2016 American presidential campaign provides much scholarly opportunity as the movement has become a popular topic for discussion among not only the presidential candidates within their campaign focuses but within current government officials (Amenta et al., 2010: 301). Much assisting this need, this thesis will encompass research onto what these politicians and officials are saying about the Black Lives Matter movement and its concerns for incorporating racial justice within criminal justice reform.

Moreover, the focus on one particular case, can add major benefits to this debate as there has been particularly many quantitative studies concerning the political influence of social movements conducted (such as: Agnone, 2007; Cornwall et.al, 2007; Davis and Rosan, 2004; Viterna and Falon,

(7)

Burch 7

1998). As a result, with focusing on one particular case, this can provide a comparable individual case study and opportunity for knowledge accumulation encompassing the individual political influence of social movements (Amenta et al., 2010: 301).

This thesis can also contribute much theoretical thinking to the social movement studies by using Michel Foucault’s discourse analysis in analyzing to what extent the Black Lives Matter movement has influenced elements of racial justice within the criminal justice reform. Social movement research and literature can be enriched by Foucauldian thinking as many of his concepts are much applicable to study of social movements. Relevant to this thesis, particularly, Foucault’s thinking towards discourse, ‘discursive formations’ and the relationship between power and knowledge helps in avoiding simple rational methods when examining influence. Foucault and the work which has been inspired by his thinking has played a prominent role in social sciences (Ullrich and Baumgarten, 2010: 3). It is thus surprising that with few exceptions (Death 2010; Sandberg 2006; Ullrich 2008, 2010; Baumgarten 2010), it has not had much impact on the mainstream of research in social movements, especially given its potential to provide more elaborate theoretical tools towards analyzing the impact of social movements. With combining Foucault’s thinking and the context of social movements, questions which may be asked is what societies consider to be normal, what they are able to communicate as a result of the rules on discursive formations for discourses and what new insights are brought into discourse by social movement actors (Baumgarten and Ullrich, 2012: 1).

Methodology wise, there are also benefits with Foucault’s approach as he draws attention to how discourses are formed and shaped primarily through discursive formations. Unlike other academics placing much focus on solely deriving meanings from discourse (Slembrouck, 2006), Foucault provides us the theoretical means in analyzing how statements or ideas are able to become part of a discourse. Foucault is also unique in placing emphasis on the relationship of power and knowledge and how agents of societal power are able to create knowledges in discourses. His work here also has much benefit with this thesis as the role of politicians and governments officials in making statements regarding the Black Lives Matter can be used within the assessment of influence. With the use of the discursive formations and Foucault’s power and knowledge relationship, it is possible to analyze not only how discourses can take on new ideas but how and why these ideas may be successful or materialized throughout societies. A discourse analysis based upon the works of Foucault thus seem to be the most clever way towards utilizing all available material and discussions relating to the Black

(8)

Burch 8

Lives Matter movement in order to gage the level of influence this movement has had upon American criminal justice discourse.

Specifically for this thesis and within Foucault’s understanding of ‘discourse’, this thesis applies the work of Foucault in two ways. First, under his ideas on ‘discursive formations’ it analyzes how and why the racial justice demands of the Black Lives Matter movement have or have not been conceivable within criminal justice reform discourse and where these positions can be seen within recent or emerging operations criminal justice system reform discourse. Secondly, through the power and knowledge relationship, this thesis examines the extent to which actors of power through linguistic communication have established related insights and knowledges and whether or where evidence of these have modified or influenced the conceptualization of this discourse.

Therefore the research question of this thesis is: To what extent has the Black Lives Matter movement influenced discourse concerning reforming the American criminal justice system and how can this be understood by Michel Foucault? Under Foucault’s understanding of discourse, this question seeks to explore not only what new discussions, focuses, practices and knowledges in American criminal justice reform discourse have been influenced by the movement but how the ideas of Foucault aid in explaining this level of influence. In exploring the answer to this question, this paper takes the following form. First Section II will provide a theoretical discussion of the Foucauldian discourse analysis governing this paper. Section III provides a methodology for analyzing the research question in correlation with the theoretical framework. However in order to grasp an understanding of what the American criminal justice reform consisted of prior to the spotlight of the Black Lives Matter Movement, section IV will construct a narrative of such. Section V will provide an understanding to what exactly the Black Lives Matter movement is and its demands of racial justice. Section VI will similarly construct the American criminal justice reform discourse but what it consisted of following 2014. Within section VII an analysis encompassing measuring the extent to which the movement has influenced criminal justice reform discourse and an understanding of how the work of Foucault aids in this understanding will be provided. Lastly a conclusion will follow providing a reiteration of the findings, the academic and societal benefits and the implications of this thesis.

(9)

Burch 9

II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Although Michael Foucault works have spent a considerable amount of time towards discourses, it has never developed one particular method of discourse analysis. Instead many who have conducted Foucauldian discourse analysis have pull particular ideas from his work towards specifying their own theoretical method (Sidhu, 2003; Richardson, 2000). However even though Foucault is deceased, such methods are completely justifiable to him as he noted “I would like my books to be a kind of tool-box which others can rummage through to find a tool which they can use however they wish in their own area... I don't write for an audience, I write for users, not readers” (Foucault, 1974: 523). Therefore, the following paragraphs will focus on the early works, of Foucault, particularly those relating to discourse in order to explain one possible Foucauldian theoretical discourse analysis.

Foucault’s work relating to discourse has given much attention to history, not within the traditional sense but rather focused on the archaeology of knowledge production. He examined the continuities and discontinuities between knowledge systems formed during certain periods of history, with a different one said to dominate each age (Pinkus, 1996). However Foucault also studied the social contexts in which certain knowledge and practices emerged as actors of power express the social world through language which in turn becomes knowledge. Foucault’s approach here is much related to social constructivism as it tries to understand how societies are shaped through language and how this in turn reflects existing power relationships (Pinkus, 1996).

However Foucault's early work was also much focused upon questions of how particular discourses have shaped and created meaning of systems which have gained the status of truth and dominate how we organize ourselves and our social world. Discourses in this dimension shed light onto why some discourses are marginalized, yet while potentially offering sites where hegemonic practices can be contested (Pinkus, 1996). In Foucault's view, there are no fixed or definitive structuring of social practices as there would be in a socially determined view. Rather the formation of practices are related to or are a function specific to discourses and an understanding of how these discourses are formed may open way for contestation (Pinkus, 1996). Such formation procedures ties into Foucault’s idea of ‘discursive formations’ which operate beneath the consciousness of individuals and define a system

(10)

Burch 10

of conceptual possibilities determining the boundaries of thought and language used within discourses (Gutting, 2014).

The question relative to this thesis now is in way these works may guide a Foucauldian discourse analysis? Relative to this thesis, such a question would address issues of power relations among society, societal practices and understandings and issues of acceptable deviance. Therefore as guidance towards a Foucauldian discourse analysis, Foucault’s work and concepts relating to the discursive formations for discourses and the relationship of power-knowledge under his understanding of discourse, will be the theoretical approach for this thesis (Figure 1). This method of Foucauldian discourse analysis has also been employed by a number of academics (Sidhu, 2003; Hajer, 1995; Richardson, 2000). Such a discourse analysis requires a deeply reflexive approach towards recognizing discursive formations and to understating the patterns of power relations through self-conscious analytical scrutiny (England, 1994: 82). However the experience of doing so is worthwhile as several analysts have noted (Hidding et al, 2000).

a. Discourse under Michael Foucault

Discourses have had profound influence on our understanding and action within the social world (Doherty, 2007: 194). From a common sense perspective, discourse can be thought of as “a coherent or rational body of speech or writing” (Hall, 1995: 201).

However a Foucauldian approach to discourse differs by viewing discourse as:

“a group of statements which provide a language for talking about - a way of representing the knowledge about - a particular topic at a particular historical moment. ... Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language.

But ... since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do - our conduct - all practices have a discursive aspect” (Hall, 1992: 192).

Here the term is used in much more of a specialized way, almost as a framework for understanding, conceptualizing and acting on common understanding. In fact, Foucault’s work on discourse is known for its aim in understanding how discourses have shaped and dominated how we understand, learn, organize and define ourselves and the social world (Hall, 1995: 201). To Foucault, discourses generate everyday life and reality, by shaping our perceptions, pulling together chains of associations which

(11)

Burch 11

produce meaningful understandings, and then organizing behavior towards objects and people (Hall, 1995: 202).

Not only do discourses help us organize, understand and learn things but they are reinforced everywhere. It is important to understand that discourses never consist of one statement, one action or one source, instead characteristics of the way of thinking or the state of knowledge at a particular time appears across a range of text, forms of conduct and within number of institutional sites throughout society. Discourses can be produced by many different institutional settings (such as prisons, families and schools) and through individuals. Every discourse constructs positions which makes society assume positions as if they were the discourse themselves. What follows is a practice of individuals or institutions determining what positions they must occupy in regards to particular discourses. Thus discourse, can be viewed as a commonly accepted knowledge in which significantly influences society, as a result of societies’ practice to confirm to it.

b. Statements and Discursive Formations

Discourses are formed by a group of statements which may have any order, correlation, position or functional similarities or disunities with objects, modes of expression, concepts or themes (Foucault, 1972: 38). The concept of a statement is defined as “an enunciative function that involved various units and, instead of giving a meaning to these units, this function relates them to a field of objects, instead of providing them with a subject, it opens up for them a number of possible subjective positions; instead of fixing their limits it places them in a domain of coordination and coexistence; instead of determining their identity, it places them in a space in which they are used and repeated” (Foucault 1972:106). Statements may sometimes be sentences or propositions, fragments of sentences, a set of propositions or equivalent formulations (Foucault 1972:106). To describe a statement would mean to define the conditions specific which are particular to its existence. They are the description of what has exactly been said (Jansen, 2008: 109)

However statements may be added to discourses and these bodies may undergo changes as new statements and ideas are added to them. New statements may even change what can encompassed or conceptualized inside of discourses (Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991: 54). A discourse can essentially be unfolded according to its internal rules of formation for development. When statements

(12)

Burch 12

attempt to join discourses, they are governed by rules of ‘discursive formations’ which determine what can be thought, said and communicated within each discourse (Young, 1981: 48). However these also have rules which include objects, similarities, disunities, common understandings or regulatory processes of each discursive formation Young, 1981: 48; Hewitt, 2009: 6). Thus new statements can join discourses but these need to adhere to how these rules of discursive formations would govern how statements emerge, circulate, are repeated, transformed, preserved or forgotten (Kusch, 1989: 17). Discursive formations thus are traits working together within the formation and continuation the existence of discourses. Since Foucault views discourses as such, understanding these traits is important towards identifying what holds discourses together and what their limits are (Foucault, 1972: 38). As an analogy such discursive formation rules serves as mechanisms for “discursive policing” for statements seeking to join discourses (Hewitt, 2009: 6).

However discursive formations are also subject to change which can have drastic effects on what is allowed within discourses. Foucault terms this process as a ‘rupture’ which conceptually shifts discursive formations by transforming conceptual understandings within their understandings or general rules (Kush, 1989: 24). Additionally, particular societal or external events may also play a role in such shifts occurring towards discursive formations (Schmidt, 1998: 37). When new statements are presented and strive to be successfully included in discourse systems, they must adhere to what can be conceptualized in the discourse.

Although Foucault understands discourse to be embedded in social systems, due to their capacity to be transformed, discourses should not be thought of as fixed entities but rather as a window to a partially situated reality (Sidhu, 2003: 34). They shape the social world while at the same time being shaped by new statements, occurrences and ideas. Subsequently, discourses produce partial, situated realties which are open to negotiation and contestation, and the understanding of discursive formation form the starting line of how additional or new statements to can be brought into discourses (McNay, 1994: 74-76).

c. Power and Knowledge

Foucault’s understanding of power can also have a role in making new statements successful in discourses. As Foucault understands power actors as having the ability to provide new knowledge

(13)

Burch 13

through language, as they recognize new insights, there is a possibility to influence how discourses are conceptualized (Rose and Miller, 1992: 179). Power then creates knowledge as actors of power establish circumstances under which claims can be counted as true or false (Foucault, 1991). Moreover, power actors have the ability to make meaning through their status (Chouliaraki, 2010:2). As societies use discourses as their conceptual understandings, every social position regarding a new statement taken by a power actor, provides more meaning to that particular idea and may result in modification of a discourse (Hall, 1997: 220). It is here that Foucault understands power and knowledge to share a complex relationship in which the actions taken by power actors and the knowledge they provide to societies, influences the understandings and positions of people in society (Whisnant, 2012: 6).

In this, Foucault prompts us to analyze how power is exercised. In place of providing a theory of power, Foucault provided an analytical form of power which he argued is able to accommodate the situated nature of power, its historical contingencies and its variable expressions across time, spaces and places (Foucault, 1982: 184). Foucault has been largely influential with shaping our understanding of power, away from the thoughts of actors using power as an instrument of coercion and away from the discreet structures in which those actors operate (Gaventa, 20032b). Although still recognizing it is a matter of influence on others (Kelly, 2015), he saw power as pervasive, productive in constant negotiation and dispersed among society (Gaventa, 2003b). He believed that analyzing power should not be targeted only at the regulated and legitimate forms of power in their central locations (such as only within the government) but with power at its extremities (Foucault, 1980: 96). This opens our understanding to understand power not only as a top down mechanism but to include any societal actors and bodies which have the ability produce legitimate forms of knowledge (Weedon, 1987: 35).

(14)

Burch 14

2.1. Conclusion

Under this theoretical framework, we should understand discourses as a socially constructed body of understanding in which society operates itself under. Moreover, through the mind of Foucault, we are able to acknowledge discursive formations and their governing rules which helps in understanding they hold such discourses together. This in turn provides much theoretical insight towards where to start with analyzing how statements may make themselves within discourses. Also, with Foucault’s understanding of the relationship between power and knowledge, it possible to take into account how actors of power may create knowledges within discourses which may shifts the understanding of these bodies.

Given these points, many questions relative to this thesis must be asked. How can we grasp a workable construction of what the American criminal justice reform discourse is? Within this discourse, what are the traits serving as discursive formations and how can the ideas of racial justice demanded by the Black Lives Matter movement fit these traits? How can these racial justice demands be understood as statements under Foucault? Another question is what new knowledges have particular actors of power actors within criminal justice reform discourse created? Particularly relevant for this thesis, Foucault’s concept of power widens our understanding to include forms such as courts, officials, politicians and law enforcement bodies. Such are examples which have the power to give knowledge and meaning to this discourse through what they are saying and what actions they are taking. If such individuals and bodies are taking action and saying things, then what is now conceivable and how has these conceptualizations been materialized among society? With all this, attention is now turned to exploring the methodology for answering such questions.

(15)

Burch 15

III. METHODOLOGY

This thesis seeks to examine the extent to which the Black Lives Matter movement has influence American criminal justice reform discourse in addition to how Foucault’s ideas of discursive formations and his power knowledge relationship aid in explaining how and why this particular level of influence has been able to take place. However in order to construct the American criminal justice reform discourse, an additional methodology must be employed, especially since Foucault did not provide one regarding how to construct discourses. Moreover, due to the same circumstance of Foucault failing to provide guidance, an additional methodology must also be employed in order to construct the discursive formations and their rules upholding this reform discourse.

Here some of the argumentative discursive analysis work of Maarten Hajer will be used to not only construct the criminal justice reform discourse but to extract the relative discursive formation and its relevant rules. Although the theoretical analysis of this thesis is much concerned with Foucauldian discourse ideas, some of these ideas of Hajer are particularly useful in constructing the criminal justice reform discourse. Particularly through Hajer’s ten steps of performing a discourse analysis (Table 1) and his ideas relating to story lines, metaphors and discourse coalitions, it is not only possible to construct a narrative of criminal justice reform discourse but to identify discursive formations and their rules upholding this discourse. However for the sake of assisting in the examination of the extent to which Black Lives Matter movement has influenced reform discourse, two criminal justice reforms discourses for the periods of 2000-2013 and 2014-present, which is during when the movement particularly took flight, will be constructed separately under Hajer’s work. This differences of time frame will create the possibility to not only to identify what dimensions of criminal justice reform have appeared after the formation of the movement but the ability to draw connections towards how these may relate to what racial justice demands have been proposed for reform by the movement. To examine the extent to which the Black Lives Matter movement has influenced reform discourse, the racial justice demands of the movement will be converted into statements under Foucault’s definition of such and analyzed as statements seeking to enter criminal justice reform discourse.

(16)

Burch 16

Table 1: Hajer’s Ten steps of Performing Discourse Analysis 1. Desk Research: First provide a chronology and come up with a first reading of events. 2. Helicopter Interviews: To gain an overview from different perspectives.

3. Document Analysis: Analyzing documents for structuring concepts, ideas and categorizations; employment of story lines, metaphors, etc. This should result in a first attempt at defining structuring discourses in the discussion.

4. Interviews with Key Players: Enables the ability to construct interviewee discourses and the shifts in recognition of alternative perspectives. Interviewees include all actors associated with

discourses.

5. Sites of Argumentation: Search the data to account for the argumentative exchange. 6. Analyze for Positioning Effect: To show how people and institutions get caught up in the interplay of positions.

7. Identification of Key Incidents: Identify key incidents and their outcomes which are essential to understand the discursive dynamics in the chosen case.

8. Analysis of Practices in Particular Cases of Argumentation: By going back to the data to see if the meaning of what is said can be related to the practices in which it was said.

9. Interpretation: Come up with an account of the discursive structures, practices and sites of production.

10. Second Visit to Key Actors: Respondents should recognize some of the hidden structures of language.

Source: adopted from Hajer, 2006.

However when reviewing hard materials which will aid in constructing criminal justice reform discourse and the statements in which the Black Lives Matter movement seeks to having incorporated into this discourse, a content analysis will be employed. A content analysis has been defined as “an approach to the analysis of documents and text that seeks to quantify content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematic and replicable manner” (Bryman, 2012: 289). The criminal justice reform narrative will be painted using a content analysis of legislation, websites and speeches of involved actors during the relevant periods. Similarly, what the Black Lives Matter movement exactly is and its demands of racial justice which it would like encompassed within discourse will also be collected from a content analysis of the movement’s website, speeches and other

(17)

Burch 17

related websites and documents relative to the group and its concerns. These particular documents are used since they compromise logical linguistic communications in which the needed information can be found.

There are indeed advantages to performing content analysis within this thesis. First it is a highly flexible method where it can be applied to a wide variety of different kinds of unstructured textual information (Bryman, 2012: 304). Additionally, a content analysis can allow for the generation of information concerning dimensions in which it is difficult to gain information about (Bryman, 2012: 305). Among such examples include a creating a construction of the American criminal justice reform discourse, since in order to do this, information from various sources must be collected. Through using a content analysis, this thesis can examine all forms of relevant communication to retrieve relevant meaning and intentions needed within the analysis. A content analysis is thus a very helpful in construction the previous and current narrative of criminal justice reform discourse since such information is heavenly stored within various text.

However a content analysis also has disadvantages relative to this thesis. First, it can be subject to error, particularly when relational analysis is used to attain higher levels of interpretation, so close attention must be given to this to avoid going above what is stated within communication. Secondly, a content analysis can only be as good as the document which is used (Bryman, 2012: 306). However Scott (1990) has recommended avoiding this disadvantage by assessing documents in relation to their authenticity credibility and their representativeness of all possible relevant documents. Thus there are possibilities to also avoiding this disadvantage.

(18)

Burch 18

IV. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM DISOURSE PRIOR TO THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT

Maarten Hajer has developed techniques for constructing discourse narratives under his argumentative discourse analysis. Although this thesis is much concerned with how Foucault’s ideas of discursive formations and his power-knowledge complex explain the ability of influence, a separate theoretical approach is needed to construct the discourse of criminal justice reform and its discursive formations in order to apply Foucault’s work.

The work of Maarten Hajer is not only useful but is much fitting towards constructing American criminal justice reform discourse. Towards benefiting this paper, since Foucault does not provide a means of constructing discourses nor identifying what discursive formations are, the work of Hajer has much assistance in this. His work can thus help in not only constructing discourse but in creating a context where discursive formations can easily be identified and conclusions drawn in regards to the governing rules for these particular ideas. It is also beneficial that he has a similar perception of discourse as Foucault by emphasizing it as having a significance in social practices or settings which regulate the actions of actors (Hewitt, 2009: 12). With using Hajer’s work as a means to analyze a discourse under a Foucauldian discourse analysis, it is useful to have additional work inspired by such thinking.

The work of Hajer is also helpful towards constructing the discourse particularly of the American criminal justice reform. Hajers work tends to make use of political discussions within his discourse analysis. This is relative as this particular discourse seems to have always been political in nature as politicians have continuously made reform efforts a key platform in their campaigns. Additionally, criminal justice reform discourse has primarily been left in the hands of actors of power, including politicians, officials and institutions of expertise. Since the work of Hajer is intertwined much with power relations, this provides much analytical opportunity with constructing a discourse primarily dominated by such actors.

4.1. Maarten Hajer in the Construction of Discourses

Through three devices (metaphors, story lines and discourse coalitions) in addition to10 steps of research, Hajer’s constructs the narrative of discourses. To explain these devices in detail, Hajer states the essence of metaphors is understanding and experiencing something in terms of another. They are

(19)

Burch 19

generally two or three word phrases for symbolizing the key ideas of discourses. Story lines often have a narrative form which people convey through facts (Hajer, 2005: 302). Story lines have a beginning, middle and an end, yet one finds that people often have their own account of a particular story (Hajer, 2005: 302). When carrying out discourse analysis, there are such stories which fulfil important roles and actors operating in discourse use these story lines for communication (Hajer, 1995). Discourse coalitions on the other hand refer to a group of actors who in the context of an identifiable set of practices, share the usage of a particular set of story lines over a particular period of time. It is important to take into account the particular situation of where story lines are uttered and discourses are drawn upon (Hajer, 2005: 302). These three devices taken into account with his 10 steps of analysis.

This thought pattern forms an essential part of Hajer’s work for constructing discourses. However he believes such narratives through the use of story lines or metaphors are particularly powerful when done in the context of the social-historical conditions of where statements were produced and received (Hajer, 2005: 300). Constructing a discourse analysis under this way opens up methodological sound ways to combine analysis of discursive production of meanings with the analysis of the socio-political practices of where social constructs emerge and in which actors that make these statements engage (Hajer, 2005: 300).

The work of Hajer’s in constructing discourses will help this thesis in two ways. First, it will serve as a guide to construct the criminal justice reform discourses from 2000-2013 and from 2014-present. Second, by having a constructed discourse, this will make it possible to identify Foucault’s ideas of what the discursive formations and its governing rules surrounding this discourse are. These two points will now be addressed.

4.2. Constructing American Criminal Justice Reform Discourse from 2000-2013

As criminal justice reform discourse proliferates in the discursive arenas of politics, national and state governments, institutions of expertise and within the awareness of civil society, these actors have all played their role within constructing this discourse. We can see this as immediately prior to the 21st century, the reform discussions consisted mainly of ‘war on drugs’ and ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric. Originally declared in 1971 by Richard Nixon, the war on drugs lasted for a little over three decades with billions of dollars and efforts being spent on various legislations combating such. Nixon

(20)

Burch 20

dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies and enacted measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. He also temporarily placed marijuana within the most restrictive category of drugs and ignored recommendations for decriminalization of instances of personal use. Although throughout the mid-70s, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession, within just a few years later, this tide shifted as many became concerned about the high rates of teen use. Marijuana ultimately became intertwined in a broader cultural backlash against the perceived permissiveness of the 70s (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015).

From this, the presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the beginning of a long period of increasing incarceration. Regan expanded the drug war as a public concern about illicit drug use continued throughout the 1980s. Much of American society became concerned with the crack-cocaine and soon after Reagan took office in 1981, his wife quickly began to publicize an anti-drug campaign (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). This paved the way for zero tolerance policies to be implemented in the mid to late 1980s. Among the enacted legislation was the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 by Ronald Regan which created mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and allocated funds to new prisons, drug education and treatment (John, 2014).

This enacted legislation continued to result in escalating levels of arrest and incarceration within the 1990s. Bill Clinton advocated for treatment rather than incarceration during his presidential campaign. However after becoming president, he reverted to drug war strategies in which the predecessors have. Clinton contributed similar tough on crime efforts as he passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which added drug treatment programs but allocated more money to prisons and issued harsher sentences, including a three-strike law. During his administration, twenty-four states also passed additional three-strikes legislations between 1993 and 1995 (John, 2014).

This political paranoia relating to drugs led to the passage of stiff penalties for their use or sale and rapidly increased the incarcerated population. Politicians from both sides increasingly became tougher on crime as a fear of being labeled as soft on crime. During this time, the question was never if this proposed measure to increase prison sentences a good idea? Rather the only question asked by politicians was whether it could be made tougher? It seemed then that if a politician suggested that the tough measures were not the best standard, then they would be risking their political careers. Republicans embraced this standard but Democrats seem to embrace it out of fear (Waldman, 2013). With applying the work of Hajer here, it is possible to see how ‘the war on drugs’ or being ‘tough on

(21)

Burch 21

crime’ is exposed as a metaphor which condenses complex realities into these short statements. The commonality of actions used portrayed these metaphors not only as a guidance to policy making but as justification for related efforts.

It was not until 1995, to when people began to question the results of the tough on crime efforts as there were more than 1.5 million people in prison which was up from 949,000 in 1993 and 329,000 in 1980 with an increasingly unsustainable prison costs (John 2014). In this year, the United States Sentencing Commission asked Congress to revisit mandatory minimums, especially in regards to the discrepancies between crack and powder cocaine (John, 2014). However such questions and recommendations were not taken serious as Congress overrided recommendation and no solid efforts at reducing the stress put upon the criminal justice system were implemented for a while. The result of such efforts was that at the start of the 21st century, everyone came to realize that the United States was facing an over-incarceration problem which reflected both a failure of the current system to actually deter crime and also a threat to the financial stability of many state budgets (Wolf, 2015). Accordingly, both Republican and Democrats administrators began testing various programs designed to reduce incarceration rates which became the main focus of criminal justice reform.

When George W. Bush first arrived in the White House in 2001, he allocated more money than ever to prisons and tough on crime efforts. Initially he pushed for the militarization of domestic drug law enforcement such as the occurrences of SWAT raids on Americans, mostly of nonviolent drug law offenses (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). Even in 2003, congress created, increased and expanded nearly 40 mandatory minimum sentences for low level crimes (John, 2014). However in 2004 during the Bush second term in office, the American criminal justice reform efforts began to see a smart on crime shift. This shed light to the creation of a new story line from the previous tough on crime rhetoric towards a system encompassing a focus of smart savings throughout all criminal justice proceedings, from where individuals enter and leave the system. In 2004, Bush proposed a prisoner rehabilitation initiative which eventually became the Second Chance Act. In regards to this, Bush stated “Tonight I propose a four-year, $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups”. Recidivism rates were also noted as a cause for Bush’s proposal as he continued with stating “we know from long experience that if released inmates can’t find work or a home, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison…America is the land of second

(22)

Burch 22

chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life” (On the Issues, 2004). The Department of Justice began to encourage judicial districts to adopt “diversion” and drug court programs which prioritize treatment instead of incarceration in order to reduce incarceration numbers and reduce recidivism (The White House, 2015).

Many politicians and officials increasingly began to shift their tough on crime stances to a more cost effective approach as they took notice of the disadvantages. Texas attorney, Marc Levin who has become one of the nation’s leading advocates of conservative criminal justice reform noted that “we're not getting a good return for our money out of our prisons…Once you reach a certain rate of incarceration, you start to have diminishing returns because you aren't just putting dangerous people in prisons anymore," he says. "You are putting in nonviolent offenders. You are not really impacting crime. You are not making people safer” (Bauer, 2014). For fiscal conservatives, this was a compelling argument for change. Many thought, how is it conservative to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money without asking whether it is providing taxpayers with the best public safety return on their investment (Bauer, 2014). Leven then asked rather to spend the money keeping low-risk offenders in prison to propose that the same money could be used for cheaper programs which keeps violent criminals locked away and the public safe (Bauer, 2014). Following such rhetoric, politicians and especially Republicans began to discuss helping ex-prisoners find housing, drug treatment, mental-health counseling, job training and education in hopes of saving the costs associated with incarceration (Bauer, 2014).

Focuses of fiscal savings in criminal justice reform efforts continued statewide. One example being, when Texas moved to add more than 17,000 prison beds at a cost of $2 billion, Leven and the Texas Public Policy Foundation suggested to spend an eighth of that money on drug courts and rehabilitative programs for addicts and mentally ill prisoners (Bauer, 2014). Legislators and Governor Rick Perry signed on and since then, the Texas incarceration rate has fallen nearly 20 percent with a decline attributed in part to such programs.

Criminal justice reform efforts also shifted towards targeting recidivism to reduce costs. In 2008, Bush signed into law, the Second Chance Act, allocating $362 million to help recently released prisoners re-enter society (John, 2015). This act passed with bipartisan support, supports state, local and tribal governments and nonprofit organization in their work to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes

(23)

Burch 23

for individuals retouring from incarceration (Justice Center, 2015). Later the Federal Interagency Reentry Council was created and the Second Chance Reauthorization Act was introduced which introduced which institutionalized additional work to reduce recidivism and high correctional cost and to improve various key reintegration outcomes such as public health, employment, education and child welfare (The White House, 2015). The Reentry Council later introduced and paved the way for a number of key milestones towards reducing policy barriers to employment and education, including Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recommendation that employers should avoid blanket bans on job applicants with a criminal history due to the potential disparate impact on people of color (The White House, 2015).

Under the work of Hajer, a formation of a discourse coalition between politicians and officials who shared similar story lines regarding how the costs of tough on crime stances were not helpful in the criminal justice system. On the politician end, the cost resulting from these policies were not seen as conservative, especially with republicans. Bush hinted towards another story line which portrayed the need to move away from tough on crime efforts and towards more focuses on reducing recidivism to lower criminal justice cost. Such story lines led to a consensus of implementing and seeking alternative punitive options.

Fairness found itself embedded with criminal justice reform as many found unfair criminal justice practices such as mandatory sentencing as major causes of high incarceration numbers (The White House, 2015). What followed was implementation of efforts and initiatives aiming to achieve a fairer system. In 2010, the Obama Administration also contributed to efforts or reducing the incarceration rate by passing the Fair Sentencing Act. This act reduced the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine by reducing the crack cocaine penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions (Kurtzleben, 2010). Among the benefits of this Act noted was the reduction in sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine which both particular disadvantaged African Americans and was a major contributor to the issue of mass incarceration (Kurtzleben, 2010). There was also statewide efforts at eliminating mandatory minimums for many non-trafficking drug offenses (Bauer, 2014). Former Attorney General Eric Holder also reversed the Department of Justice’s “Ashcroft Memo” which as the charging policy requiring prosecutors to always charge crimes

(24)

Burch 24

with the severest possible sentence and instead instructed that cases should be charged based upon the individual circumstances of the offense (The White House, 2015).

Also in 2010, Levin formed the Right on Crime organization and began reaching out to conservative think tankers and state legislators around the country. His efforts began to take hold and shield reformers as being labeled soft on crime (Bauer, 2014). Since then over half correctional facilities have closed around the nation. The Right on Crime initiative has seemed to be successful in ending the United States obsession with incarceration in a way that conservatives are increasingly buy into (Bauer, 2014). Even the conservative group, American Legislative Exchange Council which helped propagate mandatory minimum laws in the 1990s is now backing a bill, written in part by Right on Crime, which grants judges the discretion to depart from mandatory minimums for some nonviolent offenses due to mitigating factors (Bauer, 2014). The think tank is also targeting parole where researching found that parole drove 60 percent of the rise in the prison population in the 1990s. There were states where more than half of all parolees sent back to prison had only minor nonviolent violations such as missing meetings with parole officers. Since 2006, at least 11 Republicans-leaning states have eased penalties for parole violations (Bauer, 2014).

By 2011, reducing incarceration numbers seemed to becoming the norm in criminal justice reform debates. Republican Newt Gingrich stated “there is an urgent need to address the astronomical growth in the prison population, with its huge costs in dollars and lost human potential. We can no longer afford business as usual with prisons. The criminal justice system is broken, and conservatives must lead the way in fixing it” (Bauer, 2014). Gingrich is one of the increasing conservatives to embrace criminal justice reforms which seems to have been unthinkable on the Republican side just a few years ago. Former Republican Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky even stated the court system "disproportionately punishes the black community" and insisted on repealing additional mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, especially for marijuana” (Bauer, 2014). Other Republicans have spoken in favor of similar criminal policies including, then Florida governor Jeb Bush, National Rifle Association President David Keene and former Drug Enforcement Agency head Asa Hutchinson (Bauer, 2014).

As 2013 approached, alternative efforts of reducing mass incarceration, cost and ensuring fairness were well within their away. However the balance of these goals hinted towards ‘efficiency’ as another

(25)

Burch 25

coming value within criminal justice reform. This value was fore-fronted by former Attorney General Eric Holder as he called for regular law enforcement forums with state and local partners to refine criminal justice plans, foster greater efficiency and to create more open communication (United States Department of Justice, 2013). Holder pointed out that we are coldly efficient in incarceration efforts. He noted that it is not possible to incarcerate or prosecute the way to a safer nation (United States Department of Justice, 2013). In order to succeed, the criminal justice system needs to be smarter and efficient when combating crimes, the condition and the individual choices that breed it (United States Department of Justice, 2013). Statistics began to take importance such as American prisons operating nearly 40 percent above capacity and that more than half of federal inmates were serving time for drug related crimes and that many of them have substance use disorders (United States Department of Justice, 2013). More than 60 percent of former state prisoners and 40 percent of former federal prisoners are rearrested or had their supervision revoked within three years following release (United States Department of Justice, 2013).

In 2013, the Department of Justice also encouraged judicial districts to adopt “diversion” and drug court programs which prioritize treatment instead of incarceration in order to reduce incarceration numbers and reduce recidivism (The White House, 2015). This has particularly been successful in conservative states such as Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and others which have taken the lead with implementing data-driven, empirically based criminal justice reforms have achieved reduced incarceration costs and numbers by the adoption of such programs. Thinking wise, a consensus was shared that such diversion and drug program programs for particular low level crimes are better penal options than incarceration (Haguen, 2015). Impressively, several states could then began to see a steady decline in incarceration numbers from 2009, mostly due to the use of alternative penal measures (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015: 2).

Talks in 2013 began focusing on much more statistically, financially and socially informed reforms for the criminal justice system. One example of a legislative outcome is the ‘Smart on Crime’ initiative which sought to identify reforms which would ensure federal laws are enforced more fairly in an era of reduced budgets. To this initiative Holder stated that by “targeting the most serious offenses, prosecuting the most dangerous criminals, directing assistance to crime 'hot spots', and pursuing new ways to promote public safety, deterrence, efficiency, and fairness - we can become both smarter and tougher on crime” (United States Department of Justice, 2015). Since the launch of the initiative, data

(26)

Burch 26

shows that prosecutors are being more selective and focus more on serious cases with a positive impact on prosecutors (The White House, 2015).

As these more informed talks on criminal justice reform came to blossom, many began to take note of the resulting costs outside of the system. Facts began to come to light such as the striking racial disparities and the tremendous social and financial costs within the system (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015: 2). Questions of why the criminal justice system was much in need of reform were also very common. President Obama as many others stated that “the real reason our prison population is so high is that over the last few decades we have locked up more and more non-violent drug offenders than ever before” (Bibas, 2015). He added however that the “war on drugs is just a continuation of America’s long history of inequity in the criminal justice system which has disproportionately harmed minorities” (Bibas, 2015). As 2013 was approaching its end, it was becoming almost fact that mass incarceration was both financially and a moral strain which consigns families and entire communities into a cycle of poverty (Berman, 2015).

4.3. Conclusion

The discussion of these focuses, efforts and values of the American criminal justice reform during 2000-2013 should now turn to how we can make further use of this theoretically with the work of Hajer. Again, unfortunately, the work of Foucault did not provide a theoretical or methodological toolbox to conduct the analysis of discourse (Leipold and Winkel, 2013: 3). Given this, here is where the discourse analysis work of Hajer’s comes in assistance to provide these means, particularly in helping to not only construct the criminal justice reform discourse but to identify discursive formations and its governing rules upholding such. Particularly his 10 steps in constructing discourses and brief ideas of story lines, metaphors and discourse coalitions, have been useful in order to construct the American criminal justice reform discourse from these years.

The 2000-2013 focuses of the American criminal justice reform discourse vastly took another direction from the tough on crime focuses in the preceding years. The results of these policies during this era put much practical and financial stress on the criminal justice system, which led many to begin focusing on efforts and rhetoric on decreasing this stress. Naturally, the immediate focus was placed upon the issue of mass incarceration which has remained a major issue of reform discourse until this day. However from focusing on the issue of mass incarceration this led to other areas of focus such as

(27)

Burch 27

reducing recidivism, rehabilitation efforts and considering alternatives to low level crimes. The criminal justice reform discourse from this era encompassed ideas of reducing mass incarceration, financial responsibility, fairness, efficiency and maintaining accountability of the criminal justice system as underlying core values of reform.

Going back to Foucault’s idea on discursive formations which he defines as similar and/or dissimilar traits working together to hold discourses together, the criminal justice reform discourse from 2000-2013 can be seen to have had five. First, all tactics and discussions were either in some way or significantly relating to reducing mass incarceration. Secondly, stemming from this and eventually becoming a pillar of its own is the importance of an affordable criminal justice system. Third, another value of criminal justice reform is the fairness of criminal justice policies which has found itself embedded within any initiative or legislative enacted. Fourth, as 2013 approached, another dimension which approached was that of efficiently seeming related to talks and practices on how best implement the most efficient criminal justice polices based upon legitimately informed issues. Lastly, the idea of accountability has never left the American criminal justice system as officials, legislators and politicians have attempted to maintain accountability while finding ways of balancing the reduction of mass incarceration, affordability and fairness within it.

The five discursive formations of the criminal justice reform from 2000-2013 are thus: 1. Reducing mass incarceration

2. Affordability 3. Fairness 4. Efficiency

5. Maintaining accountability

With these five discursive formations being identified, the rules governing these discursive formations which police new statements seeking the American criminal justice reform discourse should now be discussed. To recap, the rules governing discursive formations include objects, similarities, disunities, common understandings or regulatory processes of each formation. These rules are particularly important as they police new statements seeking to join discourses. Statements seeking discourse must adhere to how such rules would emerge, circulate, are repeated, transformed or preserved (Kush, 1989: 17). They thus play a major role in making statements discursively meaningful within discourses.

(28)

Burch 28

When examining these rules, first regarding reducing ‘mass incarceration’, the rules which govern this discursive formation would naturally relate to similar processes having the potential to reduce incarceration rates. These would include any initiatives or policies such as alternative penal measures and recidivism program having the ability to utilize other measures than incarceration. Secondly, the rules on discursive formations for ‘affordability’ would encompass any processes relating towards reducing costs upon criminal justice measures. Similar to mass incarceration, alternative penal measures and recidivism programs would be examples of such which have the possibility to save on the high costs stemming from incarcerating people or repeating offenders. Regarding ‘fairness’, criminal justice reform discourse from this era seems to suggest that the rules governing this discursive formation would relate to ensuring that efforts are based upon penal measures fitting the intensity of crimes committed. Additionally, as 2013 approached, it was possible to see how fairness has also been extended to ensuring that all criminal justice proceeding such as court processes should be fair. One example of this would the “Ashcroft Memo”. Fourth, the rules governing the discursive formation of ‘efficiency’ would encompass tactics in implementing policies and the basic running of the criminal justice procedures being based well informed information. Lastly, although briefly touched upon, accountability has always had a central role in reform discourse since the system was developed and is a primary concern of criminal justice by holding people accountable for wrong doings.

When examining the rules on each of the five discursive formations, they are thus: 1. Reducing mass incarceration (Processes reducing incarceration rates)

2. Affordability (Encompassing measures which help the criminal justice system in saving costs and financial sustaining itself)

3. Fairness (Based upon the belief that penal measures should fit the crime committed; All criminal justice processes should be fairly enforced)

4. Efficiency (Focused upon statistically, financially and socially informed aspects which should play a role in developing how to most efficient enforce criminal justice policies and run the system)

5. Maintaining accountability (Ensuring that all options in response to crimes have some dimension of accountability)

(29)

Burch 29

Now that the criminal justice reform discourse, its discursive formations and the rules governing these five discursive formations prior to the establishment of the Black Lives Matter movement has been identified, it is now relevant to examine the movement, its calls for racial justice and how these can be understood as Foucauldian statements. Following will come the construction of reform discourse from 2014-present with an analysis of the extent to which these statements have made their way into and influenced reform discourse as well as Foucault’s understanding of this.

(30)

Burch 30

V. BLACK LIVES MATTER: The Movement, Foundations and Calls for Racial Justice

The phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ started as a hashtag in 2013 following the acquittal of police officer George Zimmerman responsible for the fatal shooting of African American teen, Trayvon Martin (McEvoy, 2015: 1). The movement which was launched on social media by community organizers Alicia Garza, Patricia Cullers and Opal Tometi quickly became an American based grassroots movement against police brutality, extrajudicial killings and institutional racism within the criminal justice system all disadvantaging African-Americans (McEvoy, 2015: 1). Soon after activists throughout the United States organized and continue to organize numerous protests demanding reforms in police practices and criminal justice legislation (McEvoy, 2015: 1).

However in August of 2014, the killing of unarmed African Americans teen Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri by police officers gave a new energy and national platform to the issue of law enforcement brutality and excessive force towards the African American community. Following, this event sparked the Ferguson protests, in which the movement came to be recognized from perhaps the movement’s most notable protest. Indeed in the months preceding Brown’s killing there was a wave of similar killings by white police officers across the United States, including Eric Gardner and Ezell Ford and to this date relatively no police officers involved in such fatalities have been held responsible (Cullers, Tometi, Garza, 2015: 1). Unfortunately similar killings have not stopped here and are continuing to this day. Additional examples include Walter L. Scott was shot on April 4, 2015 while fleeing from an officer in North Charleston, South Carolina. In Baltimore, Maryland, Freddie Gray was taken into police custody and later died on April 18, 2015 (Ruffin, 2015). On July, 2015, Sandra Bland was taken into custody near Houston, Texas after being stopped by police. She later died under mysterious circumstances while in jail. On July 19, 2015 Samuel DuBose was killed by a police officer during a traffic stop in Cincinnati, Ohio (Ruffin, 2015). Alone in 2015, police have killed at least 101 unarmed African-Americans which is more than any other race and six times the rate as unarmed whites (Mapping Police Violence, 2015). However it is believed this number is higher due to issues of underreporting (Mapping Police Violence, 2015). Within all of these cases only seven officers have been charged with a crime (Mapping Police Violence, 2015). All of these incidents were disseminated by social media and many by video at the time of their encounters with law enforcement

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Erosion of the Right to Silence in Dutch Criminal Justice?.. hamper the process of truth-finding, but may also contribute to it, since a strict obligation to give statements may

Dat komt omdat de koeien sinds de jaren zestig door selectie op spierbouw steeds gespierder zijn gewor- den, maar door minder aandacht voor het skelet hebben ingeleverd

80(1) of the German Gesetz zur Umzetsung des Rahmenbeschlusses über den Europäischen Hafbefehl und die Übergabeverfahren zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäische Union [Law (of

Secondly, as pointed out before, corruption does not have a significant effect in the interaction model, however, corruption itself has a positive

Overall, current research centers four main questions: 1) How does corporate socio-political activism influence consumers’ brand evaluations (i.e. how do consumers

How does the treatment of victims by the police and the public prosecution affect their attitudes towards criminal justice authorities and their law-abiding behaviour.. 1.3

Recently, a crimecontrol policy plan was launched to increase public expenditure for criminal law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice by extending the police

An assessment of the value of international criminal justice can the world afford?’ concerns international criminal justice in general, which is at present delivered by