CH115: Science of Crime

Podcasts are a new medium that has taken over the 21st century like a storm. My dad is always trying to get me to listen to podcasts he had listened to on the way to work, and likewise, my mom is constantly listening to different podcasts while walking my dog in the mornings. It provides the benefit of being able to multitask while doing it – you can listen to it while cleaning, cooking, driving, or walking, making podcasts incredibly useful for learning about new topics in a busy day. The ability to have different voices providing different perspectives along with background music to add anticipation or suspense to the story is something that you lack in a written story form. It has a type of personal connection that is difficult to obtain while reading an article. 

Written pieces provide more benefits when it comes to research, as it is easier to quickly reread something, or copy and paste a quote. When I wrote the previous blog about the Golden State Killer it was easy for me to go over the information I was confused about and scroll to different parts, whereas in a podcast it is much more difficult to rewind/fast forward and copy down quotes. However, the added music and anticipation that I felt while listening to the podcast is something that is not possible while simply reading a paper. I felt the fear of the Golden State Killer much more significantly in the podcast as it felt much more personal.

Personally, I prefer to sit and read an article or to watch something as opposed to just listening, however, I still think podcasts are very useful and an advancement to society. If I had to learn about a topic for school, I would choose a written piece over a podcast, however, if it was something for pure entertainment value I think a podcast has more benefits. 

(Word Count: 337)

                Podcasts are the newest form of media that has taken the true-crime world by storm. One of the main attractions of podcasts is that they are convenient and accessible. The audience is able to listen to podcasts while doing daily activities. In particular, true-crime podcasts are known for their engaging storytelling. They have the ability to draw in the audience through the use of music, sound effects, and narration, creating a more immersive experience.

                As stated earlier podcasts are a relatively new source of true-crime media. True-crime journals and articles have been around a lot longer. Both types of media have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, when comparing the story of “An Unbelievable Story of Rape” as told by ProPublica and the corresponding episode “Anatomy of Doubt” from “This American Life” the key differences are shown.

                “An Unbelievable Story of Rape” by ProPublica is a detailed investigative article that follows the story of a young woman who was raped and the subsequent investigation that led to her being charged with false reporting. The written narrative focuses on the survivor’s experience and the failures of the criminal justice system by highlighting the impact of doubt, and the mishandling of the case by law enforcement. The article does a deep exploration of the psychological toll that reporting the sexual assault had on the victim and the importance of empathy and proper investigative procedures in such cases. With this being said ProPublica’s written format lacks accessibility and emotional connection.

                “This American Life” Episode 581, “Anatomy of Doubt” presents a more audio-centric storytelling approach, featuring interviews, audio recordings, and narratives of various individuals involved in a sexual assault case. The episode presents a case study rather than discussing a specific case, focused on the broader issue of doubt and the impact it has on sexual assault investigations. In general, “Anatomy of Doubt” explores the challenges faced by survivors and law enforcement when doubt is present in a case. It examines the consequences of doubting the credibility of survivors and the need for a more empathetic and supportive approach to investigations.

                These mediums can be complementary, with the written source providing in-depth information and the podcast offering a more emotionally resonant perspective. (368)

The War on Drugs was a rhetorical war on people of color due to a history of systemic racism. After the Civil War ended African Americans were arrested in mass for extremely minor crimes, such as loitering, due to a loophole in the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment granted freedom to everyone except criminals, so when slavery became illegal they used this to essentially incriminate African Americans, again, forcing them to provide labor to rebuild the South. This led to a rapid increase in incarceration for black people. 

When open terrorism became illegal people switched to legal racism such as implementing segregation and Jim Crow laws which demoted African Americans to a permanent second-class status. During the Nixon administration, the idea of Law and Order was emphasized which led to an era of mass incarceration. During this time hundreds of thousands of people were sent to prison for crimes such as possession of marijuana, which is such a low-level drug. However, when you looked at the statistics of people arrested during this time, it was clear black people were targeted. A Nixon official even admitted that the “War on Drugs” was truly just about putting black people in jail. During this time the biggest enemies of Nixon’s campaign were the antiwar left and black people, so they used the War on Drugs to get the public to associate hippies with marijuana and black people with heroin. Then, they incriminated those drugs heavily and therefore disrupted those communities. They used the idea of a War on Drugs to deliberately target African Americans. 

Cocaine is perceived as a drug for sophisticated, wealthy people and there is an idea that only ‘pretty people’ do cocaine. Drug dealers realized they could easily convert powder cocaine to a solid that could be smoked, known as crack. Crack is essentially the same substance as powder cocaine, the only difference between the two is an additional proton. However, the sentence for crack was significantly heavier than for cocaine as it was more inexpensive and more popular in poorer African-American communities. They made the minimum sentence be 5 years without parole for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of cocaine powder.

(Word Count: 367)

In the Netflix documentary “13th,” we delve deep into the complex and often uncomfortable relationship between race, justice, and mass incarceration in the United States. A central question raised is whether the so-called “War on Drugs” was truly intended to be tough on crime, or, tough on people, specifically those belonging to marginalized communities. This examination prompts us to consider whether the outcome of the anti-drug legislation was an unintended byproduct, or rather, a calculated attack on communities of color.

Before settling as the “War on Drugs,” the campaign was introduced as “War on Crime.” It had a straightforward goal of making America a safer place by putting in efforts to reduce crime rates. However, as the campaign moved to addressing drug-related issues, it began to shift into a more sinister crusade. Rather than targeting the root causes of drug-related offenses, it over-criminalized specific communities and led to disruptions in families and communities.

The anti-drug legislation encompassed policies such as mandatory minimum sentences and a “three-strikes” law. While it may have seemed to hold the potential for addressing the issue, this approach resulted in a significant increase in incarceration rates, with the majority of those affected being people of color, with many having been imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses. This led to families being torn apart and to a cycle of trauma and violence that can be seen to this day.

The question of whether these consequences were deliberate or not remains an important topic of debate. While the initial legislature may not have been explicitly designed to target marginalized groups, the process by which these laws were enforced has had lasting, disproportionate effects on minority communities.

The legacy of the “War of Drugs” continues to affect many communities to this day, with many individuals struggling to get their lives back in order post-prison. Finding housing and employment opportunities is especially difficult with their now criminal record.

In conclusion, the lasting effects of the “War on Drugs,” as depicted in “13th,” were definitely tough on people, particularly people of color. While the campaign may have begun with good intentions of improving America and decreasing crime rates, it shifted into a system that negatively affected marginalized groups at a disproportionate rate. The fallout appears to fall short of coincidence and rather falls under the category of deliberate actions and consequences, with its “public enemy” being people of color and marginalized communities.

(Word Count: 400)

The Netflix documentary called the “13th”, is a film that shows elements of race, justice, and mass incarceration in the US. The documentary argues that the “War on Drugs” which was started in the late 1900s, targeted and harmed communities of color. It also goes into detail about the racial inequalities that come with that, the policies that led to mass incarceration, and how individuals and communities are still impacted to this day. 

This campaign was initially a “War on Crime” and was put in place to reduce the crime rate in the US and strived to make Americans feel safer in their own country. This campaign then aimed at reducing drug abuse as well as the associated crimes that went with taking these drugs, now named the “War on Drugs”. This started mandatory sentences for drug offenses, “three-strikes” laws, and other policies that resulted in very long prison sentences, especially for non-violent drug offenders. This then led to the fallout of anti-drug legislation that included a significant increase in the incarceration rate in the United States. While the policies might have been presented as a response to the so-called drug crisis, they were also used as a tool to target and criminalize people specifically of color. This led to the campaign being called the “War on People”. The question of whether these consequences were accidental or part of a deliberate effort to control minority communities is then brought up. This can be seen as a legal way to discriminate against black people and minorities because of the fact that there were higher arrest and imprisonment rates for African Americans and Latinos. 

The legacy of the War on Drugs continues to affect communities of color because many of them can’t find housing and employment after serving time in prison. The policies have also had long-lasting and damaging effects on individuals and even communities to this day. 

Word count (320)

The war on drugs was tough on people. This so-called war increased the rates of people in prison and specifically it increased the number of black people in prison. Policies on drug usage started getting increasingly harsher. Getting caught with drug possession would result in immediate prison time. The documentary specifically mentions the difference between getting caught with cocaine and crack. Simply getting caught with cocaine would essentially let you off with a warning, but getting caught with crack would send you to life in prison. I believe the documentary also mentions that at the time black people would overwhelmingly use crack more than white people. These new drug policies resulted in the drastically increase of prison population, and in the case of policies such as crack the increase in population was predominantly black. These kinds of policies seem to be a direct attack to communities of color.

The documentary talks about how communities of color were being labeled as dangerous and specifically black males were labeled as criminals, murderers, and rapists. This kind of language was being overly displayed in the media and it made people not just white people but also people of color themselves that this was true. I believe the argument can be clearly made that the authorities enforcing these policies knew what the effect on communities of color would be. Especially with the overwhelming portrayal in the media, it seems clear, at least to me, that governmental officials were well aware of the effects of their policies and either simply chose to ignore them or didn’t care.

The war on drugs should have been an attempt to move Americans towards a healthier lifestyle but it was not viewed or addressed as a health issue but rather as a crime problem. Big companies started profiting from issues that the American people were facing and the media never addressed any of these situations so America continued to live blind-sighted to the real issues going on in the world. (332)