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

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

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

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

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

When looking at the consequences of the war on drugs, many politicians who voted toward its fruition presently look back and iterate expressions of sorrow. They claim to feel guilt and wish as if they had never voted for a policy that not only has obliterated Black community efficacy but a policy that has also broken up Black families like never seen since the days of slavery. Politicians of this order are the worst kind of politician because they can engage in political-malpractice while not being held accountable. However, the blame for much of this malpractice also falls upon the ignorance and profound silence of the masses that continually refuse to speak up in the face of such grave injustice, simply because this threat of injustice does not apply to them, or so they think.

The end-result of this problem, of course, is the death of people, communities, and the nation. Nevertheless, the consequences of this problem has failed to shock the majority into acting in a manner consistent with human dignity and the urgency necessary to combat this never-ending war against certain segments of society. The criminal justice system, for the most part, operates as a contemporary system of slavery. For example, slavery, before it was "officially" done away with, provided the majority with a system that kept them at the top, while also keeping Blacks at the bottom. After the Civil War, slavery had lost its footing in the south and the advent of Black Codes and Jim Crow took its place. However, it would not be too long before human dignity/rights would prevail again, thus canceling "separate but equal." However, now the majority was left with another problem, it was one of social control yet again. How could the majority control the masses contemporarily without appearing as if it is denying the "others" human dignity/rights? The answer to this question would come by way of the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system, a supposedly democratic and impartial institution would later punish and control the "others" in the name of democracy and fairness. In fact, it was during the 1980s when the "war on drugs" in particular gained superior footing alongside the emergence of conservative criminology, which really catapulted the administration of justice away from the rehabilitative practices won in the 1960s-70s and toward a more punitive orientation. This shift within policy and academic criminology led to the grave disparities and injustices presently recognized in the system today.

Nonetheless, the outcome of this paradox accentuates that although Blacks are citizens of the U.S., by way of the criminal justice system they have subjective citizenship (this is reflected in disenfranchisement studies/stats). Blacks possess a citizenship that must be constantly validated (e.g., birthers), and at any time their citizenship can lose its benefits if they should ever come in contact with the criminal justice system, which is highly likely because of differential law enforcement and the occupation of Black communities by law enforcement. This partnership between the criminal justice system and racial demotion/subjugation is one that maintains white supremacy. Today, the criminal justice system serves as a democratic function in furthering white supremacy at the expense of minorities (mostly Blacks) and nobody speaks upon it because, theoretically, the processes that govern the administration of justice are based on the consensus model.

What further complicates this absurdity is the advent or notion of colorblindness-that, in fact, the U.S. presently operates in a reality that excludes race as a factor in any fashion. The use of colorblindness as a reality is, of course, an anecdotal expression of white conservation it is neither true nor achievable because colorblindness is the quintessential enemy of individualism. More important, an adaptation to colorblindness presents to society the same issue that colorblindness attempts to solve, a society in which people cannot be themselves.

Furthermore, many people wonder if a consciousness will ever arise out the U.S. regarding the issue of subjective citizenship by way of criminal sanctions, yet one must also wonder if it serves the best interests of the majority to rid it. Would the majority be willing to sacrifice and allow others to be themselves and participate in the greater American society without having to be someone else? Major contemporary implications regarding the criminal justice system as a tool of racial control would be the post-911 era and the super heightened surveillance complex that presently invades minority life. Although many (regardless of race/ethnicity) in the U.S. are now complainants against the strong surveillance state which now exists, they should be reminded that such a reality is nothing new to minority communities - yet the majority only sees such mechanisms as strange when they are the target. Until citizenship is conceptualized as an equal possession for all, the lives of certain sectors within society will continue to be micro-managed via the criminal justice system, "democratically" of course. However, those who have lived under auspices of validation and superiority for so long may soon need to rethink their position given the onslaught of the surveillance complex which is slowly but surely becoming racially indiscriminate in its processes. Now is the time to bind together as one despite these differences. Whether this is possible or not remains to be seen.

As many commemorate the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., I cannot help but to ask how he might define justice in late-modernity. Forty-six years after his death, America still has not dealt with its issue of racialized social control. America continues to be the leading nation regarding incarceration rates, especially of minority and oppressed groups. The current state of the country is not only a scolding denunciation to that which King stood for, but it dictates the fact that America continues to be the land where minorities are seemingly unable to receive due process-a terrible picture of fact for a nation that prides itself as the moral compass of the world.

On his supposed birthday (January 20th), many people, especially Americans, routinely take to social media and television and exclaim their respect and gratefulness for this great leader; however, few of them mention the rate at which Black males, in particular, are continuously sought and destroyed by the American justice system. On this day, the agents of punditry fail miserably to apply King's dream to contemporary realities of oppression and repression. Politicians assume the role of blindness against the numbers of mass incarceration, which are ever so readily available for their viewing. And some educators, both within criminal justice and outside, fail to use mass incarceration as a pedagogical tool in conjunction with teaching and understanding King's call for social justice.

The US' problem with mass incarceration is one that continues to bear its hypocritical soul. Time and time again, the US demands from others what it cannot do for its own. How can the government stand as the world's foremost arbiter of humanitarianism when members of its own society have long been the target of inhumane treatment at the hands of government itself? Moreover, while the US government assumes this role, members of the oppressed are sold the adage of self-responsibility in hopes that somehow the issues that plague the undesirables will simply and magically go away. Not only is this farce consciously known by many in America, but it is also a well-known fact throughout the world.

Despite the status quo's mentioning of there being a fair justice system, reports from all corners continue to display the utter opposite. For example, The Sentencing Project produced a chilling info-graphic depicting the likelihood of imprisonment over the lifespan (see, fig 1.). This data shows that men are more likely to be arrested than women, which is consistent with much of the gender-based literature regarding criminality. However, when looking at the racial differences, the data shows that, when it comes to both men and women, members of minority groups are more likely to be arrested than their white counterparts. In fact, Black males take the lead followed by Latino males and this is also reflected in the female data. A critical consultation with this data suggests that minorities, for whatever reason, are being arrested at rates much higher than their white-counterparts. Not only is this disparity a modern national disgrace, but it should be noted that such practices have historical roots.

Fig. 1.

One controversial offense that is included within the aforementioned rates of incarceration is that of drug violations. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a report entitled, "Prisoners in 2012, Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991-2012" and within this report are numbers gathered from the states regarding commitments to prison based on offense. It has long been empirically shown that Whites and Blacks tend to use drugs at equal rates, yet imprisonment rates defy the logic found in the empirical literature (see, e.g., Alexander, 2009; Tonry, 2010). For example, in 1991, the BJS report mentioned above showed that Blacks accounted for approximately 39% of drug related offenses while Whites accounted for 19% of those offenses. It should be noted that Hispanics are not included within these figures.

In 2001, however, a category for Hispanic is accessible. The numbers in this year show that Blacks account for approximately 37% of drug offenses, Hispanics 36%, and Whites 23%. In 2006, drug offenses for Blacks were at 35%, Hispanics approximately 30%, and Whites approximately 24%. Lastly, in 2011, Blacks were recorded for 24% of drug offenses, Hispanics approximately 26%, and Whites 23%. Clearly, throughout the years there have been minor decreases in drug-related prison commitments; however, even with the decreases a disparity remained. Therefore, such disparity forces society to answer for the tactics and strategies used in drug enforcement, especially when empirical data continues to show that there are no real differences between the races regarding drug use.

It is also profoundly important to mention that when most people are released from prison they face major de jure and de facto discrimination. This atrocity is presented in a ground breaking book entitled,"But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry" by Jeremy Travis. The most crude form of ex-con discrimination is the banning of drug offenders from receiving federal funding for education. This is one legal consequence that hurts minority groups the most being that they are least likely to afford college without the help of federal funding. Moreover, in a society where education is considered the great equalizer, those whom most need it are by law locked out of the dream of earning degrees-a paper that could, in fact, reduce recidivism. As a result of the de jure and de factodiscrimination, most ex-cons are recommitted to the prison. This is especially inhumane when these violations include those whom were originally arrested for non-violent offenses, like drugs.

The BJS report cited above displays numbers regarding parole violations for those originally convicted of drug offenses. For example, in 1991 Blacks accounted for 33% of those violated under parole while Whites sat at approximately 18%. Those numbers also include Hispanics. In 2001, the violations were as follow, 42% of Blacks, 36% of Hispanics, and 29% of Whites. Moving into 2006 the counts were 39% Black, 30% Hispanic, and approximately 27% White. In 2011, there were 31% Blacks violated, approximately 25% Hispanic, and 23% White. Once again, here, we see a variation between the races that begs for contextualization. It should be noted that much of the scholarly literature is helpful toward understanding those percentages. Much of the disparity has to do with bias and differential treatmentwithin the administration of justice (Walker, 2012), differential employment and housing opportunities(Visher & Farrell, 2005) and lack of social bonds (ibid) and self-actualization after being released.

What is more important to recognize here is the fact that ex-cons are instantly denied their right to self-actualization and determination. This is accomplished by the many forms of de jure and de factodiscrimination they face upon release. Also, such discrimination can be viewed in the aggregate or locally. When controlling for race, the differences are astoundingly similar to the conditions of Jim Crow for Black males (Alexander, 2009). In addition, Black females are steadily becoming the newest victim of mass incarceration. Not only does this aid in the destruction of the Black family but it destroy whole communities (Clear, 2007). Such maltreatment is validated by law and custom (see, e.g. Browne-Marshall, 2013) that is to say that, society has found it to be "ok" or "normal" for Black bodies to be treated as penal caricatures numb to the pains of imprisonment and maltreatment. Sadly, that societal feeling may have credence considering the historical context by which Blacks have long been the target of social undesirableness. Blacks know all too well how to prepare for an unjust traffic stop, or how to prepare for an unjust verdict, whether it is in the context of Zimmerman or Mehserle. Nevertheless, these experiences are no different from the extrajudicial lynching of their forebearers and the undemocratic nature of Southern law enforcement during the Jim Crow era. To put it simple, Blacks have long had to experience the wrath of state-sponsored terror democratically disguised as "justice".

If King was brought back to life today how might he define justice? He will probably look at the above numbers, which are only an inch of the problem, and bow his head in shame. He would denounce what little progress has been made and cry that more could have been done. He would shame political leaders for their utter abandonment of those who cannot help themselves against the power of a state preoccupied with white supremacy and plutocratic interests. He will possibly shame society for falling for a two-faced friendship with neoliberalism. He would remind us that, in relationships, all parties must sacrifice and give, but sadly neoliberalism has only robbed society - not give to it. He would encourage us to revert to a mechanical society, or a society in which people care for their neighbor and the suffering of others. King would remind us that the definition of justice as it stands today is not of its origin. In fact, he would probably define justice as:

1. The dehumanization of minority bodies disguised as justice.

2. The practice of disposing human bodies as worthless and undesirable.

3. The utter obsolescence of an ideology that cares for those who cannot do for themselves.

4. The destruction of Black youth as a consequence of the enslavement of their parents.

5. The refusal to recognize the LGBTQ community as human beings deserving of their pursuit to happiness and prosperity and protection from the U.S. Constitution.

6. The refusal to recognize women as the sole authority of their bodies, lives, and as equal partners to men.

7. The radical opposite of due process and fairness for all.

King would have to admit that the dream since his death has been continuously deferred-by design! He would have to investigate the beneficiary of this deferral and confront that entity head-on. As people celebrate King's accomplishments they should try to ask themselves one simple question, how might King define justice in light of today's issues of oppression and repression? Because although most like to bask themselves in his accomplishments, it is time for individuals to begin to ask themselves how might they make King's dream a reality, as opposed to an idea that is cherished each year without any forthright action or critical consultation. Lastly, King would remind us to read and study his letter from a Birmingham jail, for the cure for our social decay is not so far away!

Agozino, B. (2003). Counter-colonial criminology : a critique of imperialist reason. London: Pluto Press.

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow : Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. . New York City: New Press .

Browne-Marshall, G. J. (2013). Race, law, and American society : 1607-present. NY: Routledge .

Clear, T. (2007). Imprisoning communities : how mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. NY: Oxford .

Georges-Abeyie, D. (1989). Race, ethnicity, and the spatial dynamic: Toward a realistic study of black crime, crime victimization, and criminal justice processing. Social Justice 16, 35-64.

Hudson, B. (1993). Racism and criminology: Concepts and controversies. In D. Cook, & B. Hudson,Racism & Criminology (pp. 1-27). London: Sage .

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

Staples, R. (1975). White racism, black crime, and American justice: An application of the colonial model. Phylon 36, 14-22.

Tatum, B. (1994). The colonial model as a theoretical explanation of crime and delinquency . In A. T. Sulton, African American Perspectives on: Crime Causation, Criminal Justice Administration, and Crime Prevention (p. 33.52). Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann .

Tonry, M. (1995). Malign Neglect: Race Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press. .

Tonry, M. (2010). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. New York City: Oxford University Press .

Visher, C., & Ferrell, J. (2005). Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry. D.C: Urban Institute .

Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neo-liberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University .

Walker, S. (2012). The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. Belmont: Wadsworth .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote 1
If there was one witness who the juror didn't find entirely credible it was Trayvon Martin 's friend Rachel Jeantel . "I didn't think it was credible, but I felt sorry for her. She didn't ask to be in this place. She wanted to go. She didn't want to be any part of this case. I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her." She added, "She was embarrassed by being there, because of her education and her communication skills, that she just wasn't a good witness."

Quote 2
Cooper asked the juror specifically about Jeantel's "creepy-ass cracker" statement that drew wide attention during the trial. She said she thought it was "probably the truth" and that "Trayvon probably said that" but said she didn't "think it's really racial. I think it's just everyday life. The type of life that they live, and how they're living, in the environment that they're living in."

Quote 3
In the second part of the interview, the juror told Cooper she thought Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" on the night he shot and killed Martin and the only thing he is guilty of is "not using good judgment [sic]." She said she thought he had "every right to carry a gun," adding, "I think it's everyone's right to carry a gun."

Quote 4
When Cooper asked if the juror thought Zimmerman "really felt his life was in danger" she responded. "I do. I really do." When he asked if she thought Martin "threw the first punch," she said, "I think he did." Despite those assertions, she admitted that among she and the other jurors, "Nobody knew exactly what happened."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.
2. The likelihood a stop of African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.
3. Despite the overall reduction in stops, the proportion involving black and Latino New Yorkers has remained unchanged. They continue to constitute 84 percent of all stops, despite comprising only 54 percent of the general population. And the innocence rates remain at the same level as 2011 - at nearly 89 percent.
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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