The Legal System in the "Age of Colorblindness"
Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow, as I've said before, has lots of interesting commentary about how blacks still face oppression in a time where almost everyone claims to be "colorblind." In chapter 3, titled "The Color of Justice," Alexander focuses on another thing many of today's youth aren't fully familiar with: the legal system in America. Just from my historical knowledge and that of recent events, I'd say I know a fair amount about the court process, but I'll admit I don't fully understand all of the intricacies and policies of the system. Now, for obvious reasons, the legal system is supposedly "colorblind." Racial justice has been quite the hot topic for a while now, so the 14th amendment to the Constitution, stating that all Americans have the right to equal protection under the law, should theoretically make the system completely fair regardless of race. However, two things undermine this, and Alexander explains both in depth, introducing them on page 104: the first is the incredible amount of discretion given to police officers when deciding who to stop, search, arrest, or charge with drug offenses. The second is that claiming you're a victim of racial discrimination, unless this discrimination is absolutely explicit, is not a viable defense in court.
In this chapter, Alexander refers back to something in a previous chapter I did not cover. On page 108, Alexander describes the effects of Whren vs United States, a court case in which it was deemed acceptable for police officers to use minor traffic violations, such as stopping the wrong distance from a stop sign or going a couple miles over the speed limit, as "probable cause" for a drug search, even if there was no other indication of drug activity. Alexander refers to it as a "fishing expedition for drugs" and that description just further reinforced my distaste toward the government's encouragement of seeking out potential drug busts. Petitioners in Whren claimed that the high level of discretion given to law enforcement allowed their decisions to be influenced by subtle biases and stereotypes, and as such, black people would inevitably be singled out due to their stereotypical association with drug crime. Realistically, a police officer couldn't pull over everyone they saw performing a minor violation, so it's not unreasonable to assume small biases would have a major effect on their judgement when deliberately singling people out to try and get a successful drug bust. However, while I can see the argument that these people are not inherently biased, it was decided in Whren that no claims of racial discrimination could even be made in cases about the 4th amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures, denying potential victims of racism the ability to argue their case at all.
That much was unnerving enough as-is, but while I generally agree with Alexander's points, I'm not content with single examples such as Whren. However, some very telling statistics appear in this chapter as well; in the state of Georgia, in a study of over 2,000 murder cases carried out by Professor David Baldus, defendants charged with killing white victims received the death penalty over 11 times as often as defendants charged with killing black victims, as Alexander states on page 110. Of course, while other factors besides race would undeniably be in effect here, 35 of these major factors were considered and accounted for, and black people killing white people STILL received the death penalty over 4 times as often as white people killing black people. Now, this research was used by Warren McCleskey in 1987, after he was arrested for murdering a white police officer during an armed robbery. The statistics suggest a massive correlation between race and death penalty rates, but the Supreme Court dismissed them because he was unable to prove without a doubt that the jury was acting on racial biases when they decided to give him the death penalty. Alexander states that "the Court accepted the statistical evidence as valid but insisted that evidence of conscious, racial bias in McCleskey's individual case was necessary to prove unlawful discrimination" (110). All of this disturbed me more than anything else in the book thus far--the correlation is undeniable, yet it seems like people even in the Supreme Court are willing to skirt around the issue of racism in the legal system. I'm appalled, frankly.
Ultimately, this chapter really brought to light the racial flaws of the legal system in America. I would argue that we aren't "color-blind," but rather "race-blind." People are quick to dismiss issues, even those that statistically seem to be race-based, as completely unrelated to race just to maintain this facade of "color-blindness." Now, I want to clarify, I don't think everyone faces this issue. I live in a community that is generally very accepting and understanding of people of all walks of life, and many peoples' biases (while always present, at least to a very small degree) are nothing more than very subtle generalizations that we are actively working, as individuals and a larger community, to overcome. I don't want to stroke you guys' egos TOO much, but I think our class really does have a profound understanding of social justice you wouldn't expect from a small, mainly white community. This book calls things to my attention that some of you are already aware of, or perhaps you've already learned about and disagree with. Above all, this book and unit on race as a whole are both making me appreciate the fact that people who don't frequently have to deal with racism in their lives are still able to gain an understanding of it and form opinions on how it should be addressed. In a small, isolated town, many people feel restricted or barred from the world, wanting to escape this bubble and contribute, in some capacity, to society. The fact that we can develop open minds within a bubble means that, when we inevitably leave that bubble, we can contribute to creating a truly color-blind America.
In this chapter, Alexander refers back to something in a previous chapter I did not cover. On page 108, Alexander describes the effects of Whren vs United States, a court case in which it was deemed acceptable for police officers to use minor traffic violations, such as stopping the wrong distance from a stop sign or going a couple miles over the speed limit, as "probable cause" for a drug search, even if there was no other indication of drug activity. Alexander refers to it as a "fishing expedition for drugs" and that description just further reinforced my distaste toward the government's encouragement of seeking out potential drug busts. Petitioners in Whren claimed that the high level of discretion given to law enforcement allowed their decisions to be influenced by subtle biases and stereotypes, and as such, black people would inevitably be singled out due to their stereotypical association with drug crime. Realistically, a police officer couldn't pull over everyone they saw performing a minor violation, so it's not unreasonable to assume small biases would have a major effect on their judgement when deliberately singling people out to try and get a successful drug bust. However, while I can see the argument that these people are not inherently biased, it was decided in Whren that no claims of racial discrimination could even be made in cases about the 4th amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures, denying potential victims of racism the ability to argue their case at all.
That much was unnerving enough as-is, but while I generally agree with Alexander's points, I'm not content with single examples such as Whren. However, some very telling statistics appear in this chapter as well; in the state of Georgia, in a study of over 2,000 murder cases carried out by Professor David Baldus, defendants charged with killing white victims received the death penalty over 11 times as often as defendants charged with killing black victims, as Alexander states on page 110. Of course, while other factors besides race would undeniably be in effect here, 35 of these major factors were considered and accounted for, and black people killing white people STILL received the death penalty over 4 times as often as white people killing black people. Now, this research was used by Warren McCleskey in 1987, after he was arrested for murdering a white police officer during an armed robbery. The statistics suggest a massive correlation between race and death penalty rates, but the Supreme Court dismissed them because he was unable to prove without a doubt that the jury was acting on racial biases when they decided to give him the death penalty. Alexander states that "the Court accepted the statistical evidence as valid but insisted that evidence of conscious, racial bias in McCleskey's individual case was necessary to prove unlawful discrimination" (110). All of this disturbed me more than anything else in the book thus far--the correlation is undeniable, yet it seems like people even in the Supreme Court are willing to skirt around the issue of racism in the legal system. I'm appalled, frankly.
Ultimately, this chapter really brought to light the racial flaws of the legal system in America. I would argue that we aren't "color-blind," but rather "race-blind." People are quick to dismiss issues, even those that statistically seem to be race-based, as completely unrelated to race just to maintain this facade of "color-blindness." Now, I want to clarify, I don't think everyone faces this issue. I live in a community that is generally very accepting and understanding of people of all walks of life, and many peoples' biases (while always present, at least to a very small degree) are nothing more than very subtle generalizations that we are actively working, as individuals and a larger community, to overcome. I don't want to stroke you guys' egos TOO much, but I think our class really does have a profound understanding of social justice you wouldn't expect from a small, mainly white community. This book calls things to my attention that some of you are already aware of, or perhaps you've already learned about and disagree with. Above all, this book and unit on race as a whole are both making me appreciate the fact that people who don't frequently have to deal with racism in their lives are still able to gain an understanding of it and form opinions on how it should be addressed. In a small, isolated town, many people feel restricted or barred from the world, wanting to escape this bubble and contribute, in some capacity, to society. The fact that we can develop open minds within a bubble means that, when we inevitably leave that bubble, we can contribute to creating a truly color-blind America.
Thomas, I appreciate your comments about the impact of the book and the assignment. As difficult of a topic as race is, I see it as a fundamental discussion we need to have as it does continue to influence our country.
ReplyDeleteEarly in your blog post, you mention the idea of the "fishing expedition" for drugs. Part of what people often respond to in this part is that the people who are stopped and eventually arrested do have drugs on them. What would you say to the claim that such actions are, therefore, effective in finding people with drugs? And yes, I am playing devil's advocate a bit here, so humor me.