Is American Justice Truly Blind? Race and the Law

Introduction

Like pornography, many Americans claim they may not be able to define it, but they know what justice is when they see it. Moreover, Black's Law Dictionary (1990) offers only a circular definition of justice—"to see justice done"—that does nothing to illuminate the concept. Unfortunately, the lack of definitional clarity is not the only constraint on the equitable administration of the law. A wide array of other factors, including most especially race and socioeconomic status, also play a critical role.

Indeed, charges of so-called "white privilege" have been increasingly discussed in the mainstream media, and a growing number of Americans are questioning whether the American ideal of blind justice for all is a reality or a myth. To determine the facts, this paper examines the effects of political and operational perspectives on crime control as they apply to minorities and the economically disadvantaged. It also identifies several corresponding key goals of crime control and analyzes which goal can be achieved better than the others. Finally, the paper discusses whether minorities are unfairly profiled, arrested, and prosecuted—and are therefore inadequately protected by the criminal justice system compared to other demographic groups.

Political and Operational Perspectives on Crime Control

The political perspectives that have special implications for minorities include the varying views of conservatives and liberals with respect to the antecedents of crime, its consequences for American society, and what steps should be taken to address the problem (Worrall, 2015). While the various causes of crime are well documented, the severity of the responses to different crime types differs according to the prevailing political will of the nation at any given point in time. For example, Worrall (2015) points out that political perspectives tell us a great deal about why certain crime control approaches have come to pass—conservative policies, for instance, are often adopted when conservative politicians are elected to influential positions. This dynamic means that certain types of crime more likely to be committed by marginalized individuals with little or no viable employment—those who may turn to property or violent crime as a means of survival—receive a particular quality of political response.

Conversely, people in positions of authority who enjoy the benefits of high-profile occupations are far more likely to commit white-collar crimes, which may not represent an especially high priority for the criminal justice system compared to violent crimes, even though they are far from victimless. The differing causes of crime also invoke political responses that range from "get tough on crime" approaches advocated by conservatives to assurances of constitutional due process protections that may not be fully extended to minorities. Thus, political responses to crime control exist along a continuum that shifts based on which political parties control different jurisdictions, including at the federal level where the implications are nationwide.

In contrast to the pragmatic approach of political perspectives, operational perspectives adopt a more abstract focus: determining how the criminal justice system operates in the real world and what strategies law enforcement authorities should use to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans. As Worrall (2015) notes, both perspectives are political in the sense that they closely resemble liberal and conservative orientations, but their concern is more with how the justice system should work than with what causes crime, what effects crime has on society, and what should be done about it.

Crime Control vs. Due Process: Competing Models

The due process and crime control perspectives differ with respect to the priority assigned to law enforcement, even at the potential expense of constitutional rights. The crime control perspective holds that the key aim of criminal justice policy is the control of crime, perhaps at the expense of individual liberties and due process protections (Worrall, 2015). As Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and the rapid enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks made clear, Americans have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice at least some civil liberties when they believe such sacrifice is justified by national security threats.

By contrast, the due process perspective holds that the key aim of criminal justice policy is the protection of due process and people's rights, even if crime control suffers as a result (Worrall, 2015). Certainly, when many people are afraid because of relentless violent crime, the argument for the crime control perspective is easy to make—and justifiably so. It is impossible to protect anyone's civil liberties if they have been murdered. But there is an important counterpoint: due process advocates argue that the government's primary job is not to control crime but rather to maximize human freedom, which includes protecting citizens from undue government influence (Worrall, 2015).

This perspective carries real weight in light of the dozens of cases in which innocent people have been released from prison in recent years—sometimes after decades of wrongful incarceration—as a direct result of the government's manipulation of evidence or prosecutorial misconduct. As Worrall (2015) emphasizes, due process values favor minimizing the potential for mistakes, partly because people are notoriously poor observers of disturbing events, and because confessions and admissions made by persons in police custody may be induced by physical or psychological coercion. Taken together, it is apparent that the political and operational perspectives differ substantially, though it is possible to achieve better outcomes by drawing on the strengths of both.

Conclusion

One of the harsh realities of the human condition is the tendency for people to learn prejudices from an early age that persist over a lifetime, even when they are routinely confronted with solid evidence that such prejudices are unfounded. Another reality that must be acknowledged is that people who enjoy more power than others tend to go to great lengths to protect their social privilege, even when doing so means oppressing others.

Against this backdrop, it is clear that both the political perspective—concerning optimal approaches to crime control—and the operational perspective—concerning how best to protect the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution—provide useful frameworks for evaluating how fairly the criminal justice system operates in real-world settings. Although the research suggests that justice is not yet truly blind, achieving equitable application of the law remains possible when policymakers recognize disparities and take the steps necessary to eliminate them.

Recent trends in the political makeup of the U.S. Congress suggest that the political perspective will increasingly focus on achieving these types of reforms in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the day may well come when the United States no longer incarcerates more of its citizens—especially minorities—than any other country in the world, and draconian "three strikes"-type laws will be a thing of the past.

References

About the Fourteenth Amendment. (2021). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from

Gorman, A. (2021, March 6). Poet Amanda Gorman says she was racially profiled near her home. New York Post. Retrieved from https://www.wndu.com/2021/03/06/poet-amanda-gorman-says-she-was-racially-profiled-near-her-home/.

Priority definition in Merriam-Webster. (2021). Retrieved from

Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2009, January). Developing social justice literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 345–350.

Worrall, J. (2015). Crime in America: What works? (3rd ed.).