Quantcast
Connect with us

Why won’t the Supreme Court do anything about racism?

Published

on

- Commentary

The Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke fired 16 shots, killing the African-American teenager Laquan McDonald; 14 of those shots were apparently fired while McDonald lay on the ground. It took four years and the expulsion of the state attorney general before the trial against Van Dyke for first-degree murder resulted in convictions for the lesser crimes of second-degree murder and aggravated battery this October. Before the shooting, Van Dyke ranked among the worst 3 per cent of officers in excessive force allegations, making him identifiable as a ‘problem officer’ even before he killed McDonald. This case is remarkable not for the violence committed by a white police officer against an unarmed African American, but because it involved a rare instance of the United States’ legal system scrutinising a police shooting. The courts in the US have done little to intervene more generally in the mass surveillance, mass violence and mass incarceration affecting people of colour.

ADVERTISEMENT

Racial division has always been the transcendent theme of American society. But with the proliferation of recording devices on every phone, there has been an explosion of videos showing police committing various acts of violence against minorities. Now the US is being forced to face the reality of police beatings, shootings, and police officers taunting people of colour whom they have stopped on the street with little justification. Yet the US Supreme Court has refused to weigh in on these obvious racial discrepancies in the criminal justice system. Instead, it emphasises constitutional colourblindness, which allows it to avoid confronting the judiciary’s role in perpetuating racial discrimination in the US.

The Supreme Court has historically been viewed as a model for functioning constitutional democracies because of its power of judicial review, which enables it to act as an independent check on government. But even though the Court now expends roughly one-third of its docket on criminal justice cases, it consistently ducks the key challenges of discriminatory police stops and frisks, fatal police shootings, unconscionable plea deals, mass incarceration, racially disproportionate sentencing and disproportionate execution of racial minorities. For these reasons, we argue in a recent article in the UC Davis Law Review that the Supreme Court has made itself supremely irrelevant in several important ways.

The first involves the Court’s power to regulate police-civilian interactions. The most common interaction that members of the public have with the police is in short, nonvoluntary stops initiated by the police, requiring very low levels of suspicion. In New York City, between January 2004 and June 2012, police conducted 4.4 million of these stops. In Chicago during the same period, police conducted approximately four times as many stops. A lower court found that the New York Police Department was unconstitutionally targeting racial minorities: 91 per cent of stops were of nonwhites, even though they make up only 67 per cent of the city’s population. But a higher court reversed the decision to prevent the stops, which disproportionately subject young black and Latino men to the indignity of forced encounters, physical patdowns and an alarming number of fatal police shootings.

Despite strong evidence that police disproportionately detain racial minorities, the US Supreme Court has said that it will not examine whether police target particular individuals based on their race, so long as the police can identify other, race-neutral facts that support their suspicions. Even highly subjective facts, such as a person’s ‘furtive behaviour’ or presence in a ‘high-crime neighbourhood’ will suffice. But the Court’s permissive attitude toward police stops has serious repercussions: it is often during these short stops that fatal shootings and other violence between citizens and police occur. Such violence ensues with strikingly higher frequency in the US than in other countries. One study estimated that in 2014 police in the US killed 458 people. In that same year, police in Germany killed eight people; in Britain, zero people; and in Japan, zero people. By failing to regulate police stops, the US Supreme Court is enabling this astonishing number of civilian deaths at the hands of police.

The Supreme Court also ignores the racial injustice playing out at later stages of the criminal justice process. The US is a global anomaly in its rate of imprisonment, with 2.3 million people in prison in 2017. That figure is 30 per cent higher than the second-highest nation, China, despite the US having a significantly lower population. Per head of population, US imprisonment is four and a half times that of England and Wales, six times that of France, and nearly nine times that of Germany. In 2016, an additional 4.5 million people were on probation or parole in the US, meaning that approximately 6.6 million people were under correctional supervision during that year. This mass incarceration affects racial minorities disproportionately. Blacks are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of whites nationwide, and at least 10 times the rate in five states. Studies have shown that arrest records alone cannot explain why racial minorities are sentenced more frequently and more severely than whites. It is estimated that discrimination by prosecutors after arrest drives approximately 25 per cent of sentences for racial minorities. Despite this evidence of systemic inequality, the US Supreme Court has had little to say about racially disproportionate mass incarceration.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court also seems indifferent to the disproportionate imposition of the death penalty on racial minorities. The Court has refused to consider the fact that more than 54 per cent of the current death row inmates are black or Latino, and only 42 per cent white. The Supreme Court closely examines every other aspect of imposition of the death penalty, recognising that application of this ‘ultimate punishment’ ought to be rare and subject to careful oversight. Yet the Court has said that the disparate application of the death penalty to different racial groups does not trigger constitutional protection.

These issues are tearing at the fabric of US society, with protests blooming in response to videos of police shootings and evidence emerging of police and prosecutors targeting traditionally disadvantaged minorities. Yet the Supreme Court has little to say in the face of readily apparent racial disparities in the criminal justice system that it is meant to oversee. The Court is abdicating its responsibility to regulate the US criminal justice system, hiding behind newly created ‘colourblind’ conservative doctrines that limit its own review of these undeniable social ills. And with the recent appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to secure a five-vote conservative majority, it might be decades before the Court’s criminal justice rulings offer meaningful protections to the people most impacted by that system. Meanwhile, people of colour are paying the price.Aeon counter – do not remove

By Tonja Jacobi & Ross Berlin

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Roger Stone, coronavirus and the upcoming months that may destroy America as we know it

Published

on

From the Electoral College to structural racism, America is feeling painfully aware of its inherent flaws these days. None looms more ominously now than that awkward moment that is the presidential transition. In the momentous winter of 1860-61, the United States literally split in two during the haze between the failed presidency of Pennsylvania’s James Buchanan and the first-ever Republican administration of Abraham Lincoln that terrified the slave-addled South.Now consider this scenario: A seemingly unending crisis has ripped millions of jobs from the U.S. economy, with a growing homelessne... (more…)

Continue Reading

Commentary

Senate Republicans can’t distance themselves from Trump — here’s why they’ll have to go down with him

Published

on

Trump’s failing campaign is threatening Republican control of the Senate. Nevertheless, when asked whether the president has exhibited failed leadership in response to the coronavirus, Senator Joni Ernst defended him saying, “I think that the president is stepping forward.”

Apparently that response helped her opponent, Theresa Greenfield, raise over $100,000. It’s worth noting that the most recent Des Moines Register poll showed Greenfield leading Ernst by three points. In a state Trump won by nine points in 2016, that same poll had Biden ahead by one point.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Well, the good news is Trump hasn’t entirely lost his mind — or so he says

Published

on

Donald Trump, 74, bragged last week during a Sean Hannity interview that he had “aced” a recent cognition test at Walter Reed Hospital.

Trump boasted that doctors witnessing the test “said that’s an unbelievable thing. Rarely does anybody do what you just did.” He then challenged Democrat Joe Biden, 77, to match him.

But haven’t we skipped over something here?

Doctors wanted Trump to take a cognition test? Is that a normal thing for presidents?

Trump said he asked to take the test after criticisms over his inability to walk down a ramp with ease at West Point, needing to hold a glass of water with both hands and multiple occasions of slurring and mispronouncing words.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image