Introduction: Drug Sentencing
The crack cocaine epidemic has influenced modern sentencing for drug possession or selling due to the severity of the situation at the time. However, the current conditions portray the inefficiency of the system when it comes to combating drug-related problems on a national scale. Instead, the same disparities related to over-policing still affect certain ethnicities and races, the LGBT minority, and people with a record of mental illnesses. The over-policing of vulnerable demographics leads to a dispersed system in which certain communities are more prone to being legislatively punished for the same offense. Needless to say, the crack cocaine epidemic in the 80s and 90s led to the militarization of the police since there were many counter-drug operations that needed more severe approaches.
Factors Creating Inequality in the Legal System
There are several factors that create such inequality in the legislative system. The inequity is evident since the people incarcerated for drugs are primarily represented by minorities such as African Americans, LGBT representatives, people with mental illnesses, and other vulnerable populations. In order for the problem to be mitigated, it is essential to consider all the aspects that lead to such outcomes. First, the legislative system itself was and still is centered around punishing drug offenses instead of preventing them. Moreover, certain groups are being marginalized from how they are being judged to how they are treated in prison. Police officers are often biased when detaining suspects, and corrections officers ignore the injustice that affects these individuals, which is why the rate of incarcerations and remissions is so high.
Marginalized Groups
It is certain that specific demographics were targeted as primary offenders during the war on drugs. However, as the crack cocaine epidemic has mutated into an opioid epidemic, the same minorities remained the most often incarcerated for drug possession. According to researchers, communities of color are disproportionally represented in the category of people sentenced for drug offenses, which is one of the outcomes of the crack epidemic (Charity, 2017). Moreover, research examining the topic has concluded that the LGBT community is also disproportionately affected by drug use and, thus, sentences related to such offenses (Haeder et al., 2021). Last but not least, a study has shown that around 50% of all incarcerated people deal with mental illnesses (Frankham, 2018). Based on this evidence, it is inevitable that drug-related charges have been primarily represented through the imprisonment of minorities, a factor that has not been mitigated since.
Sharanda Jones
A case that has been circulating in the media due to the illustration of unfair policing is Sharanda Jones’ incarceration. Jones was sentenced to life in prison in the late 90s for a non-violent first drug offense (Rosen, 2021). The situation is direct evidence of the biased policing field decision-making since Sharanda Jones, an African American woman, has not been involved in any illegal activity prior to the one in question. The life sentence is evidently an overly strict punishment for a non-violent offense. However, the racial bias may have been why Jones was incarcerated and then sentenced so harshly. It is essential to point out that the discrimination has not been illustrated by the police officers but rather by the court system overall in this particular situation. Thus, it is vital to examine the multi-layered system, which starts with field decisions.
Field Decisions
The legislation itself primarily impacts field decisions. Thus, police officers investigate cases based on the guidelines implemented on a state and federal level. However, there is a level of bias when it comes to how the situations are dealt with. There are multiple reasons why this may be the case. One of them is the lack of diversity among law enforcement officers. A lack of diversity can lead to disproportionate incarcerations of particular groups that are not represented among police officers. Moreover, another essential factor is targeting specific populations without looking at the broader picture. Thus, communities that are statistically less likely to have high incomes or access to high-level education are vulnerable to being involved in illegal activities. Instead of implementing prevention measures and confronting the core of the problem, the field decisions are based on the outcomes.
Courts Decisions
Law enforcement is a multi-layered entity, which is why it is crucial to address the multitude of actors within the system. Courts are the tools used to decide whether one deserves punishment and how harsh it should be. Based on Sharanda Jones’ case, it is certain that a life sentence was not only facilitated by the system itself but also the bias that has led to such results. First, it has to be mentioned that there are discrepancies when it comes to the individual’s socioeconomic status. Jones’ financial situation did not allow her to hire a good lawyer that would perhaps be able to minimize the sentence and successfully represent the client in court. Moreover, researchers illustrate that even death sentences are predominately given to black inmates (Shestak & Goncharova, 2020). Also, courts are more likely to sentence people with mental illnesses and LGBT representatives, as mentioned prior, which also refers to the bias of the system.
Corrections
Police officers, judges, and attorneys are not the only people affecting vulnerable populations. It is also vital to point out some of the factors that directly influence the individuals sentenced to prison times. In terms of female prisons, oftentimes, male corrections officers engage in unethical behavior (Stern, 2018). Moreover, transgender women often have to serve their sentences in male prisons, which puts them at high risk of sexual assault (Jenness et al., 2019). Currently, prisons cannot provide the necessary care for pregnant women, disabled people, and those with mental illnesses. Moreover, since drugs are a major part of why people are being incarcerated, inmates are unable to self-medicate and cannot access adequate resources to combat phycological disorders. Such circumstances are often a result of oversight and the lack of intentions to change the situation for the better.
What If?
If Sharanda Jones were a white, wealthy woman without the need to provide care for a paralyzed mother, the situation would have been different. As Jones’ offense was a no-violent one, and the individual in question had no prior problems with the police, the police officers, judges, and attorneys would undoubtedly be keen to facilitate a much less harsh sentence. The argument is not that a person willing to engage in drug use cannot impose any danger on society. However, the measures with which such people are dealt with only create a dispersed environment with a lack of equal opportunities for all. Jones’ vulnerable societal position facilitated by racial ethnicity, income, and family situation led to negative outcomes. If Sharanda was a part of the majority and the law enforcement would not have reasons for bias, it is certain that Sharanda would not have received the same punishment.
Diversity
While diversity is not evidently linked to the inequality which is suggested by the rate of people incarcerated for drug-related offenses, it has a major role. Law enforcement is not proportionally diverse compared to society as a whole, which has several adverse outcomes. First, it may create a hostile environment in which bias is not considered a negative factor but rather an undisputed reality. Moreover, a diverse workforce may lead to an improved culture of the entity. Thus, law enforcement officers who are not operating in a diverse environment cannot achieve the same cultural will to maintain a reputation of a safe, lawful, and fair organization. Furthermore, a lack of diversity may facilitate the lack of insight when it comes to how different communities operate and the factors that have to be confronted to create equal opportunities.
Statistics
Statistics show the disparities when it comes to the employees operating in the legal system. White men are certainly the most represented in law enforcement. Specifically, out of all the males, 67% are Caucasian. Moreover, there is a major difference between the number of women and men working in law enforcement. Statistics show that out of all the workers, 700,000 are male, and 120,000 are female, which is not representative of society. Another essential difference is illustrated in the income. Men earn more than $71,000, while women make less than $64,000 (Data USA, 2021). Such a big difference in salaries illustrates that women have lower-paying jobs in law enforcement. The findings suggest why more males are willing to apply for a job in the system and how come there are such enormous disparities in numbers.
Areas that Need Diversity Reforms
Diversity has to become an area of focus since law enforcement is a direct representation of society. However, the system did not effectively mirror society for the reasons highlighted earlier. There is a need for gender equality and equity since the rate of females in this particular area is much less significant compared to the number of males. Moreover, the differences in income also suggest the current lack of gender equity. Another area that needs improvement is ethnic and racial representation. By enrolling more representatives of minorities, the risk of reoccurring bias will be minimized, and the entire system will become fairer in terms of incarcerations and sentencing. Thus, diversity is a vital subject that has to be confronted in order for people such as Sharanda Jones to receive adequate punishment instead of life sentences for a singular non-violent offense.

The crack cocaine epidemic has affected multiple vulnerable communities (African Americans, LBGT, individuals with mental illnesses, etc.). Instead of preventing drug use by providing people with equal opportunities, the system started harshly punishing people most vulnerable to being incarcerated. Police officers are biased when dealing with suspects. Moreover, courts are biased when sentencing people, and the prisons do not adequately address those serving the sentences. The whole system is designed in a way that the environment becomes negative and does not facilitate fairness but instead creates more precedents that continue the cycle. One way of mitigating the adverse outcomes is implementing a more diverse workplace. This would confront some of the challenges connected to inequality and ultimately contribute to a more equal, fair, and equitable system in which each person is treated equally.