Unfairness in the American Judicial System Examined

The Myth of a Fair Criminal Justice System

The objective of this study is to examine unfairness in the American judicial system. Toward this end, this study conducts a review of academic and professional peer-reviewed literature in this area of inquiry.

There is an existing myth in today's American society that the American judicial system is "fair." However, this belief is due to societal conditioning and traditionally held assumptions about the system, not to the reality of its current practices, principles, and processes.

There is presently a high level of unfairness in the American judicial system, evidenced by disparate sentencing guidelines and laws and by the mass incarceration of individuals from vulnerable, poverty-stricken communities — specifically the mass incarceration of racial minorities and those who have committed drug offenses. Individuals committing heinous or violent crimes frequently receive sentences shorter than those handed down to individuals arrested for drug use.

This unfairness is further compounded by violations of the civil liberties of American citizens whose rights are protected under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, but were undermined by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act following the events of September 11, 2001. That legislation granted the government and law enforcement sweeping authority over the lives of American citizens, effectively removing many of the constitutional protections guaranteeing privacy and freedom from illegal search and seizure.

The work of Robinson and Williams (2009), published in the Justice Policy Journal, examines the belief that the U.S. criminal justice system is fair and concludes that this is simply a myth. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "fair" as being "marked by impartiality and honesty…free from self-interest, prejudice or favoritism." Related terms include: (1) just; (2) equitable; (3) impartial; (4) unbiased; (5) dispassionate; and (6) objective — all of which imply freedom from viewing either side of a dispute more favorably than the other. Robinson and Williams (2009) also note that the concept of "desert" must be considered in understanding fairness, referring to the idea that an individual should receive what they deserve in terms of punishment or reward.

Drawing on the work of Karmen (2009) on victimology and Miller (2003) on social justice, Robinson and Williams argue that "it is unfair when those culpable for harmful behaviors are not held accountable for their actions. Many believe that the criminal justice system is fair" (Robinson and Williams, 2009, p. 1). Indeed, a survey of Americans found that 66% believed the American criminal justice system was fair, and approximately two-thirds of those polled in 2000 and 2002 stated that law enforcement in their communities "treated people fairly." Nevertheless, more informed observers regard the notion of a fair criminal justice system as a myth — defined by Robinson and Williams as a "popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something…an unfounded or false notion" (2009, p. 1).

One example of the unfairness of the American judicial system involves the case of a law enforcement officer who shot and killed a young Black man in Ferguson, Missouri. Reports indicated that the grand jury deliberated for only two days before deciding not to bring charges against the officer. The prosecutor presented a minimal amount of evidence to the grand jury and, though he possessed the authority to bring charges independently, chose not to do so. Because the officer was never put on trial, the full truth of the matter was never established.

According to Kozy (2014), disturbing facts also arise in relation to the death penalty. For example, "where crime occurs can play as big a role as the nature of the crime in determining who will live and who will die. Similar murders might get 40 years in one location and the death penalty in another." In many U.S. states — including Tennessee, Ohio, and Maryland — a large percentage of death sentences arise from only a handful of counties. Compounding this problem, "individual prosecutors have broad discretion to decide when to seek the death penalty…the definition of 'death eligible' is so broad that there is little guidance for prosecutors to make that decision. That leaves room for bias and other factors to seep into the decision-making process, despite a prosecutor's best intentions" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1).

It is further reported that many high-profile murder cases "don't result in a death sentence because the defendants can afford better lawyers who negotiate deals" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1). Poorer defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty, while those who commit premeditated murder often receive sentences under 40 years. By contrast, individuals who commit robbery in which a killing occurs unexpectedly — and even their accomplices, who may have been unknowingly present — frequently receive death sentences. As Kozy (2014) notes, "there have even been instances of accomplices getting executed while the person who actually committed the murder got life" (p. 1).

While murder is a grave crime, the death penalty is intended to be reserved for the "worst of the worst" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1). Further undermining equity, Americans are constitutionally assured the right to trial by a jury of their peers; yet individuals who oppose the death penalty are excluded from serving on capital juries, meaning "large segments of the population cannot participate in the most serious cases" (Kozy, 2014, p. 1). There has also been a documented pattern in which prosecutors strike Black jurors in murder cases, even though the Supreme Court has expressly prohibited racially motivated jury strikes.

An instructive example of judicial unfairness is provided by Kozy (2011) in the case of Cory R. Maples, a death row inmate in Alabama whose lawyers had missed a deadline to file an appeal:

"'Mr. Maples lost his right to appeal,' Justice Alito said, 'through no fault of his own…But a ruling for Mr. Maples,' Justice Alito continued, 'could require the court to adopt principles that would affect many, many cases and would substantially change existing law.' He said he was reluctant to impose new burdens on government officials and to allow clients to second-guess their lawyers' decisions in order to provide relief to Mr. Maples." (Kozy, 2011, p. 1)

It is troubling that the American judicial system would allow a man to face death due to a missed filing deadline, justified on the grounds that correcting the error would burden government officials. This represents an abuse of judicial authority. Furthermore, approximately 23 individuals were executed in the state of Alabama alone who were later proven to have been innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted and executed.

Law Enforcement Abuse and Civil Liberties

Many law enforcement officers in the United States are upstanding, ethical, and committed to public service. However, those who violate the civil liberties of American citizens, commit assault or abuse, or unjustly kill civilians taint the processes of the American judicial system and ultimately endanger their fellow officers. For individuals raised to trust law enforcement under the principles of "serve and protect," witnessing police abuse destroys that confidence, generating fear — and a frightened individual becomes a dangerous one when they believe their life or civil liberties are under threat.

A central problem in the American judicial system is that law enforcement officers are not being held to the same laws they are sworn to uphold. Criminal activity by law enforcement officers rarely results in criminal prosecution; more often it results in warnings or temporary desk duty. As a consequence, misconduct frequently goes unchecked and continues to occur.

Sentencing Discrepancies and Inequality of Access

Discrepancies in the sentencing of offenders are clearly illustrated by the difference in penalties for possession of powder cocaine versus crack cocaine. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws impose much stricter penalties on crack cocaine offenses, creating significant disparities that fall disproportionately on racial minorities — most specifically African American males.

As reported by Stoner (n.d.), some scholars argue that "the central ingredient of unfairness in the American judiciary system is inequality of access" (p. 115). Access problems point to a "tendency of the courts to rule in favor of the 'haves.' Much of this is directly attributable to the superior quality of legal counsel available to the 'haves.' On a deeper level, there is considerable thought that courts placate the collective interests of the 'haves' in dispute resolution" (Stoner, p. 178).

Racial Disparities in Minority Sentencing

The work of Dunnaville (2000) reports that a study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, entitled Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System, found that "racial disparities may have increased rather than subsided over the past few years. The report concludes that, while in the past half century the United States has made significant overall progress toward the objective of ensuring equal treatment under the law for all citizens, in the critical area of criminal justice, racial inequality appears to be growing, not receding, and our criminal laws, while facially neutral, are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased" (Dunnaville, 2000, p. 1).

The report also reveals "systematic unequal treatment of African American and Hispanic Americans and other minorities, as compared to their similarly situated white counterparts within the criminal justice system. Disparate treatment of minorities begins at the very first stage of the criminal justice system: the investigation of suspected criminal activity by law enforcement officials. Innocent minority citizens are detained by the police on the street and in their cars far more than whites" (Dunnaville, 2000, p. 1).

When minority citizens are wrongfully targeted for investigatory stops based on race, the consequences include "inconvenience, humiliation and a loss of privacy that is heightened when the rationale for the police action is the color of a motorist's skin or a pedestrian's accent. Furthermore, during some investigations and interrogations, the police employ tactics that shock the conscience. The disparate implementation of justice continues through the trial, jury deliberation and sentencing" (Dunnaville, 2000, p. 1).

Dunnaville further cites the report's finding that "unequal treatment of minorities characterizes every stage of the process. Black and Hispanic Americans, and other minority groups as well, are victimized by disproportionate targeting and unfair treatment by police and other frontline law enforcement officials; by racially skewed charging and plea bargaining decisions of prosecutors; by discriminatory sentencing practices; and by failure of judges, elected officials and other criminal justice policy makers to redress the inequities that become more glaring every day" (Dunnaville, 2000, p. 3).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The objective of this study was to examine unfairness in the American judicial system. Findings indicate that the American judicial system is inherently prejudiced and unfair, and that its principles, practices, and processes have become deeply flawed. The result is the mass incarceration of poor and minority individuals — many of whom pose no threat to society — who receive far harsher sentences than a genuinely equitable judicial system would impose. This, in turn, produces the decay of vulnerable communities, the removal of valuable members from families and neighborhoods, and inequitable sentencing practices that are counter-productive to society as a whole. This study also found that the administration of justice is frequently distorted by the concerns of elected officials about the burdens that accountability would place upon them.

Decisions are made in favor of attorneys who misrepresent their clients and fail to file timely documents. Prosecutors in today's American judicial system engage in racially discriminatory jury selection practices despite Supreme Court prohibitions. Juries are no longer composed of impartial peers of the accused but are instead carefully screened to favor conviction.

This study recommends that further research focus on the relationship between the American judicial system and the privatized prison industry — a system that benefits financially from filling prison beds and expanding inmate populations. It is evident that the American judicial system has developed a commercially motivated arrangement with the prison industry. If mass incarceration were to decline, many prison facilities would face closure and many probation and parole officers would face unemployment. Restorative justice calls for a fundamentally different understanding of the judicial system's purpose and role in American society. The American judicial system has become corrupt and commercially driven, rather than serving American citizens and upholding the constitutionally guaranteed principles of civil liberty.