Although the founding fathers of our nation did their best to ensure fair and due process of law when they established our justice system, there is a sickness that’s eating away at what we know as the due process of law. Racial bias is alive and well in our justice system, and it has been found to influence jury decisions and subsequent sentencing. Right now, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on two cases involving explicit racial bias that has affected juror deliberations and ultimately the sentences recommended by these juries.
Almost ten years ago, the Supreme Court asserted that it is unconstitutional to base decisions on the assigning of students to particular schools on race, regardless of the goal being the integration those schools. The opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority dismantled two school districts’ plans for desegregation and created obstacles inhibiting the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. He justified the Court’s ruling by stating that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
There are two cases before the Supreme Court right now that shine a light on the type of indisputable, unequivocal racial discrimination that fly in the face of the Chief Justice’s colorblind statement. The Court’s handling of matters of racism will decide the fate of two men and will also bring into focus the Court’s recurrent disposition to overlook the implicit racism that undermines our criminal justice system.
Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado and Buck v. Davis are two very distinct cases. Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez was convicted of allegedly attempting to grope two teenage girls. Dwayne Buck was convicted of murder. Mr. Pena Rodriguez received a sentence of two years’ probation and was required to register as a sex offender. Mr. Buck was sentenced to receive the death penalty. The similarity between these two cases arises in juries that were both contaminated with explicit overtures involving racist stereotypes, which in turn jeopardized the process of deliberation.
In Mr. Buck’s case, his own attorney called an expert witness during the penalty phase of the trial, Dr. Walter Quijano, who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to commit future crimes because he is Black. In Texas, where Mr. Buck was tried, future hypothetical danger posed, or “dangerousness”, is a factor that the jury must unanimously determine as existing in order to introduce the death penalty. The expert’s testimony was then utilized by the prosecutor during his closing arguments to convince the jury that Mr. Buck was too dangerous to not receive the death penalty. The jury subsequently issued a death sentence.
In Pena Rodriguez, the jury was in the middle of intense deliberations, when (according to two jurors’ affidavits) a juror who established himself as a former law enforcement officer, made a number of racist statements. Included in these statements were remarks that the defendant probably committed the crime because in his (the juror’s) experience, when he “used to patrol, nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” The juror also cast aside an alibi provided by a witness, who was also Latin, because the juror asserted that the witness was an illegal immigrant, even though the witness was in fact a legal immigrant. The jury was not able to come to a verdict on a felony charge, but instead found the defendant guilty of three misdemeanors.
Though in both cases the claims of racial bias are largely admitted to, the lower courts denied requests for relief due to obstacles in procedure. In the Pena-Rodriguez case, the Colorado Supreme court denied the racial bias claim based on the statute stated in the so-called Mansfield rule. The Mansfield rule states that jury deliberations are inviolable and does not allow testimony from jurors about those transactions, even in proceedings where jurors may have behaved improperly. It is now within the power of the Supreme Court to repair this error and elucidate that unequivocal, racist stereotyping during jury deliberations is so immoderate as to exceed any benefits awarded by the Mansfield rule.
In comparison, the lower courts have maintained that Mr. Buck waived his right to appeal the issue of the performance of his attorney in calling the expert witness and has defaulted in procedure on any claims in connection with the ineffective assistance of counsel. In this as well, Supreme Court precedent permits exception to such defaults in procedure, but lower courts maintained that Mr. Buck’s assertions weren’t “extraordinary” enough to warrant such an exception. The Supreme Court now has an chance to right the lower court’s improper decision that being subject to the death penalty because of racist stereotypes is not an exceptional circumstance.
These are just two instances of implicit racial bias in our justice system that are being heard by the highest court in our nation. The fact that racism is allowed in juror deliberations seems to undermine the entire process. Many jurors are sequestered from the outside influences of TV and print media as well as public opinion. Would it not also be prudent to ensure that juror’s explicit biases are not skewing their better judgment?
Buck v. Davis – Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from https://ballotpedia.org/Buck_v._Davis
Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007).
Peña-Rodriguez v. State of Colorado. (2016, July 1). Retrieved October 11, 2016, from https://www.aclu.org/cases/pena-rodriguez-v-state-colorado.
Totenberg, N. (2016, October 11). Supreme Court Hears Case On Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/497196091/top-court-hears-case-on-racial-bias-in-jury-deliberations.
Tags: #AppliedSocialPsychology, criminal justice system, discrimination, prejudice
I think that the main issue with the Justice System is a two part issue : 1. The wrong individuals are being put in certain positions and 2. There is nothing, no check in place to ensure that the actions taken by the individuals employed by the justice system are making decisions, based on ethical and fair criteria. I’m a strong believer that not everybody is bad, therefore; not everybody who works in the justice system is bad. There are some individuals that work in the system that truly wish to make a difference and make our system just. However; there are all the political roles in place within the system and people with power that prevent the more “common” individuals who work in the justice system from being able to do what is right. Examples range from cops being paid off, to laid off, to attorney’s being fired for doing what is considered the “right” thing. I truly hope that there comes a time where our justice system is reevaluated and reconstructed. As we can see, what we have established right now is doing doing what’s right “for the people” is doing what best for “some people”.
I really enjoyed your post! I thought your ideas and opinions were well written and well communicated. It’s interesting that these are such discriminating circumstances and cases that are currently under review, yet we never hear about them! In the case of Mr. Buck, it also sounds as if his attorney didn’t defend his client to the best of his ability, which personally sounds as if it might be a violation of his agreement with his attorney.
I also focused my post this week on racial issues in the judicial system, namely the Trayvon Martin case, although my focus was on the reduced six member jury. Something most curious about it was the lack of racial variety among the jurors. All female, five white and one Hispanic. There was no one serving on the jury who represented Martin’s community. I found this to be an unfair proceeding to obtain justice for his death!
It’s really hard for me to comment on this subject because for every one case that we hear about there are a hundred more that we don’t. However, I didn’t comment to disagree because I whole heartedly believe that racism still exist. When reading this blog there is one case in particular that I want to bring up. That is the case of Brock Turner in the Stanford rape. A lot of people were outraged that Brock was only sentenced to six months in prison after he was found guilty of rape. It is believed that Brock’s skin color played a role in his sentencing. Rapist come in all different ages and races but should be charged the same. The San Jose Mercury News called the sentence “a slap on the wrist” and “a setback for the movement to take campus rape seriously (Stack, 2016).”
It’s frustrating to think about because this 20 year old, whether he was under the influence of alcohol or not, knew what he was doing. And now there is a women out there that will have to live with that for the rest of her life. Race should not be the determinating factor, the determinating factor should be justice.
Reference
Stack, L. (2016). The New York Times. Retrieved from Light Sentence for Brock Turner in Stanford Rape Case Draws Outrage: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/outrage-in-stanford-rape-case-over-dueling-statements-of-victim-and-attackers-father.html
It is disheartening to see that racism never seems to have an end. It seems like it is an inate feeling that is built into some people. However, it is most damaging when the fate of another person is at stake. When you pause to think about, how can they prevent racism in court. In some cases will never know if racism played a role. Those are only two cases that we know of. I wonder how many are out there who suffered an unjust trial due to their race. It is truly sad to see that many people still have such beliefs when it comes to judging based on race. It truly takes a small mind to think that way. But then again, the idea of a just world is merely a psychological theory thats been researched to not exist. Will there ever be a time that race is not involved. It seems if race is not the issue, then its religion and vice versa. Some people don’t look at the facts anymore, they only focus on external unrelated social factors and determine someones fate based on a history of others that shared the same race. I am a foreigner and I have witnessed first hand racism against my family because of acts that people from race have committed that have zero relation to the people my family and I are. However many people can’t help the subconscious feelings they have towards others, and they allow them to cloud their judgment. In some cases, it’s a severe misjudgment like the cases above where people had to pay the price because of their racial identity.