The Invisible Black Victim: How American Federalism Perpetuates ...

about the role of the national government in protecting the rights of minorities and other
disadvantaged groups, I suggest that crime and justice are arenas where the nationalization of
issues has left the most important constituents behind. In fact, local crime politics provides a
space where there is regular and ongoing articulation of the inclusionary goals of the civil
rights agenda and sustained efforts to move forward in realizing that agenda through
meaningful community involvement in promoting public safety, economic development, and
social justice. This article explores these themes and offers a discussion of the linkages
between federalism, racial inequality and crime, victimization and punishment.
One of the most discouraging facts of racial inequality at the dawn of the twenty-first century
in the United States is the disproportionate impact of crime, violence, arrest, and
incarceration on African Americans and Latinos compared to whites. While 1 in 106 white
men over age 18 was incarcerated in 2007, the figure for Latino men is 1 in 36, and for black
men it is a staggering 1 in 15 (Pew Center on the States 2008: n.p.). At virtually any point in
the justice system, blacks and Latinos are substantially overrepresented relative to their
proportion of the population (Walker et al. 1996). At the same time, blacks and Latinos also
experience crime and violent victimization at far higher rates than whites. Overall homicide
rates for blacks are more than seven times those for whites, and the homicide rate for black
males ages 18-24 is more nine times that for whites of the same age (Bureau of Justice
Statistics 2005). There is strong empirical evidence that both victims and incarcerated
populations are heavily drawn from poor areas with high concentrations of racial minorities
and that this concentration has serious consequences for children, families, marriage,
neighborhood vitality, and economic opportunity (Clear 2007). The promise of civil rights is
the promise of inclusion; yet these vast disparities stand as stark reminders of the nation's
long history of racist exclusionary practices.
How are we to make sense of these disparities half a century after Brown v. Board of
Education (1954), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? The
alarming data on minorities, crime, and victimization undermine claims of racial progress and
threaten to limit or even reverse the movement toward greater racial equality. While we know
much about how individual racial attitudes shape preferences and legal norms on crime and
violence, and that developments in law and order have often traded on racial cues, we know
much less about how America's racialized past continues to provide mechanisms for social
policymaking and legal decisionmaking that perpetuate such deep inequities (see Gilliam &
Iyengar 2000; Mendelberg 1997; Murakawa 2005; Provine 2007; Wacquant 2005; Weaver
2007).
I argue that no general account of race, inequality, crime, and punishment in the United States
is complete without an understanding of the distinctive character of American federalism.1
Federalism in the United States was forged in part as a mechanism for accommodating
slavery, and it facilitated resistance to racial progress for blacks long after the Civil War
(Dahl 2003; Finkelman 1981; Frymer et al. 2006; Katznelson 2005; Lieberman 2005;
Lowndes et al. 2008; Riker 1964). American federalism limits the authority and political
incentives of the central government to address a wide range of social problems that give rise
to crime and diffuses political power across multiple venues, which makes it difficult for the
poor and low-resources groups to access decisionmaking. As a result, federalism renders
largely invisible the only political terrainFurban areasFin which minority victims are
routinely visible, as victims of both violence and political and economic marginalization. In
order to address racial inequality in criminal justice, advocates for racial progress must
overcome a dizzying array of fragmented lawmaking venues and commandeer the lawmaking