Race Legislation in US: Equal Treatment for All? - Research Paper

Introduction

There exist legislations in the United States that seek to address judicial issues concerning race or ethnicity called race legislation. In 2004, about half of the jailed inmates in the United States belonged to the African-American group (Depew et al. 210). The African-American males imprisoned at the time neared seven times the white males. For many years, the United States' judicial system have held that the defendants should receive equal treatment and should not get a different treatment due to their race. Religion, gender, ethnicity, age discrimination, sexual orientation, race, or any other form of harassment have existed in the U.S legal system for decades (Depew et al. 212). Lawyers have the leverage to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in the event of an allegation of biases in the judicial system. Management operations in the judiciary, such as engagement in law firms and judicial offices, hiring, and policy-making processes within the judicial system remain avenues of judicial biases within the country.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The 1776 Declaration of Independence that encouraged campaigns against slavery and racial discrimination in any form led to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution. The judicial reforms to minimize legal biases began from the period of the Civil War and the Reconstruction epoch and spans through the nadir of the American race engagement era through the early 20th century (Robertson 739).

It is no doubt that the United States has had a lengthy history of racial distinction in various aspects of life, including employment, education, public accommodations, among others (Robertson 739). However, the courts have dealt with these issues in varying ways that are not very convincing to the people over a long period. It is worth mentioning that there is no single area in the life of American people that is more volatile compared to the point at which the administration of criminal law intersects with charges of racial injustice. Among other examples that sparked the origins of race distinction in the American courts include the Liberty City riot in Florida that took place in 1980; Watts, California riot of 1965; as well as the Los Angeles, California riot that took place in 1992 (Robertson 739). Understandably, these renowned riots were all sparked by incidents that were perceived as involving, to a greater extent, issues of racial unfairness in enforcing criminal law.

The last period on judicial reforms regarding racial discrimination begins with World War II and the heightened civil rights movement, leading to the repeal of racial segregation laws. Race legislation has incorporated immigration laws that encompass particular requirements against certain nationalities and ethnicities (Robertson 739). The legislation enacted and entrenched in the American Constitution under the 'Equal Protection' clause of the 14th amendment aims at preventing defendants from prejudice. Biases in the judicial system can start with legislations, after that, to magistrates, advocates, and lastly, with the jurors.

In these clear show of racial distinction in the judicial system, the Los Angeles case was characteristic. The riot was mainly ignited by the fact that the police officers who were charged for criminally assaulting one black motorist known as Rodney King, was cleared as innocent by a jury that did not contain any black member. Hence, this was a clear case of biases in the United States judicial system at that time (Sagiv 229). Undoubtedly, this issue has remained to date. The violent emotions and anger that succeeded the acquittal of the police officer indicated, to a greater extent, the long-standing belief on the part of the Blacks that the United States judicial system reflected biases towards them, and it was unfairly administered against them (Sagiv 229). Most of the races complained that they were mistreated by the judicial system, whether they were victims of crime or defendants. These cases gave rise to the origin of the modern-day biases in the judicial system of the United States. Interestingly, in the Gallup poll of 1995, more than half of the Black race who were interviewed confirmed that they believe that there are racial biases in the administration of criminal justice, which is biased against them (Robertson 739). Also, the majority felt that racism against Black police was also common throughout the United States.

For a long time, the number of criminal law enforcement has provided a clear picture of the above claims. Other races are being victimized at a higher rate than the rates at which Whites are being victimized (Robertson 739). Hence, these are clear indications that racial distinction is rampant in the judicial system of the United States.

Present-Day Biases in the Judicial System and their Effects

As stated above, one of the major present-day concerns is the biases that exist in the United States judicial system. However, as had been mentioned, this act originated a long time ago (Sagiv 229). Because of this, the judicial system of the United States remains to be a race-based institution where other races are targeted and consequently punished harshly than white counterparts (Clair 334). However, it would be politically inappropriate in some way to say that the United States judicial system is racist. Nonetheless, the various facts that have been presented over time are quite overwhelming. There exists information on race for all the judicial justice system from police stops, drug, arrests, jury selection, prison, trial, parole, sentencing, legal representation among others that support racial biases in the U.S judicial system (Clair 336).

Firstly, to substantiate the biases that exist in the judicial system in the present-day, according to research conducted by the Equal Justice Initiative of 2010, it has been observed that in most cases, Blacks are illegally exempted from serving in the criminal jury (Robertson 739). Notably, this claim is backed with an example from Houston County, Alabama, where the study confirmed that prosecutors had exempted 8 out of the ten Blacks who qualified for the jury service from serving in the cases involving death penalties. The exemption of these juries from the cases is a clear indication of the present-day racial distinction that is rampant in the U.S judicial system (Robertson 739).

Another case that proves biases in the present-day judicial system of the U.S was reported by the United States sentencing commission that confirmed in March 2010 that black offenders received longer sentences than white offenders who committed the same crimes (Sagiv 229). Another report conducted by the Sentencing Project indicated that a greater percentage of the Blacks were highly likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white counterparts. The report further revealed that the Blacks were more likely to be sentenced as compared to white defendants (Sagiv 229).

Also, once arrested, the majority of the people in the criminal justice system obtain a public defender for their lawyer. However, race performs a more significant role, as well. When one gets into any urban courtroom and look at the color of the people waiting for public defenders, such a person will be stunned (Clair 337). Most of these people are Blacks. However, despite the marvelous efforts by these public defenders, they are also frustrated as the judicial system give them more work with low pay as compared to the prosecution.

Further, in most scenarios, defendants plead guilty even when they are innocent without understanding what is taking place or their legal rights. The assumption by the judicial system of right to a lawyer to a person that is accused of any criminal conduct does not exist in practice for most Blacks across the United States (Clair 339). Therefore, this confirms the biases in the judicial system.

Lastly, it had been observed that the police stop Latinos and Blacks at a much higher rate compared to whites (Sagiv 229). In New York City, for example, where Blacks are the majority making up more than half the population, a higher percentage of police stops were of Latinos and Blacks. When they were stopped, a higher percentage was frisked compared to the low percentage of whites that were frisked (Clair 348). Notably, this trend is the same and common in most parts of the United States. As a result, this is a clear confirmation that there exist biases in the judicial system of the United States, even in the present-day.

The various effects of biases in the judicial system cannot be understated. The effects have had devastating impacts on other races. Undoubtedly, these biases have compromised the outcome of various court cases, thereby putting the lives of people at risk (Sagiv 229). Firstly, the effect of such biases is that there has been a wrongful conviction of innocent people, which has meant that guilty members are acquitted of their crimes. Innocent people are convicted wrongfully, leading to untold suffering because of racial distinctions. Another effect of biases in the judicial system is that it has led to innocent people from other races being rendered guilty and punished with death penalties hence leading to innocent people losing their lives because of a judicial system that is biased against other races (Sagiv 229). Finally, biases in the judicial system have led to riots and wars between races that felt targeted and the whites. These riots are propagated by the feeling that Latinos and Black Americans were unfairly treated by the police as well as other branches of the judicial system.

Solutions to the Issue

The first solution to the problem of biases in the judicial system is the use of a double-blind court system. As mentioned earlier, bias has shocking effects on the proceedings of any trial. However, if judges and jurors could be blinded so that they do not see the defendant, and not blinding them to the evidence, then one major weak link for bias shall have been eliminated (Williams 48). It is true that a blind person is unable to be biased by either race or beauty, and not because they cannot be biased, but because there exist no visual cues that can trigger those biases. It should, however, be noted that this solution of the double-blind system does not merely tackle racism distinction but also serves as a broad way of negating any possible biases in terms of gender, race, appearance, affiliations, accents as well as other social identities (Williams 48).

However, it should be noted that the implementation process of this solution requires greater input. In most cases, politics and practicality of the process play a bigger role (Williams 48). The double-blind system has to be practical in its application because it incorporates some of the equipment that exists in some courtrooms already. Currently, and in line with this system, a two-way closed-circuit television is being used in the various courtroom, which includes circumstances that involve sexual abuse of the minors. Because the double-blind system has been existing for some time, it would easily use this technology. Hence it will require minimal implementation because it already exists in many courtrooms (Williams 48). For example, it is believed that one of the critical cases that involved the use of this technology is traced back to 1990 when it was used for the first time. As a result, the courtrooms can serve as models and examples for other courts across the United States that are yet to implement this technology. On the political front, as a nation, the United States, being a country of many races, has to decide on how to deal with the problem of racial biases in the judicial system, and the double-blind system offers the best solution (Williams 48). Therefore, the impartial...