With something like one quarter of the world's prison population being incarcerated in the USA, this documentary attempts to break down that fairly startling statistic and analyse just whether history and historical attitudes and prejudices have been instrumental in arriving at this situation. Crossing generations and centuries, the narrative postulates that much of this is down to grievances between ethnicities and to assertions that the white population is and has been using the penal system to unfairly and consistently persecute African Americans as effectively as state-sponsored segregation ever did. In many ways and thanks to a wide variety of archive and contributors it makes a point that is often hard to refute; it also suggests quite forcefully that being Republican or Democrat doesn't neccessarily mean you are any more pro or anti the case being put forward here about the disproportionate application of discriminatory punishment. Is the film balanced? No, not in the least. It has an axe to grind and finds evidence to support the claims it set out to prove in abundance. Does that make it one-sided? Yes, but that doesn't make it wrong - it just makes the case for the Caucasian communities to present their own version of events to explain and respond to the legitimate questions posed here and to ask equally legitimate questions about ingrained anti-white racism too. There are few saints here, just a great many sinners trying to seize the upper hand in a debate that quite often would sooner discuss politics than look at just why people commit crimes. Are most crimes against non-whites committed by whites? Are most against African Americans carried out by people of their own race or by those of another? Statistically, what percentages of the population as an whole are in jail because they killed someone, or raped then, or because they routinely steal cars or peddle drugs that do a similar job a few days down the line more recreationally or addictively? This neither asks nor answers any of these questions, instead striving to ensure the thrust remains about race and not about crime. In any civilised society evolution happens in fits and starts, mistakes are made, blame is dished out and hopefully progress is made - but that can't happen if historical abuses are held like a revolver to heads - just ask Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu. Reconciliation comes with truth, but that truth isn't always what everyone wants to hear. Much is made in the latter stages of this film about President Clinton's "3-strike" rule. Life imprisonment for being a drug mule if you're convicted three times. Excessive? Well perhaps hindsight shows that it may well have been, but if your kid had died of an overdose and it turned out that their supplier had been in and out of jail for a decade, might you not consider their freedom too much of a price to pay? What this showcases effectively is that prison can work for extremely violent individuals - regardless of their shade - but thereafter, as a means of rehabilitation, does it work at all? Doesn't it actually just ensure that inmates arrive to serve sentences and merely hone their skills as established law-breakers amidst a university of felons? Does it take people whose misdemeanours might have been forgiveable and turn them into even more hardened and embittered citizens or might it actually deter them from re-offending? Again, none of that is really gone into as we assess the implications of the American Constitution's 13th Amendment. This is provocative, and it's well worth a look - but it's determination to avoid looking at society in the round as it is today left me feeling a little like I was being lectured to.