Racially Based Nullification

The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.

The racial bias against McMillian is shown in his interactions with the law enforcement, who would often yell racial slurs at McMillian (Stevenson, 2014, p. 48, 55). Another example of racial bias against McMillian is the exclusion of African-American jurors from his trial, although there were few black jurors to begin with because the case was moved to a county with a negligible African-American population (Stevenson, 2014, p. 60, 62). These two examples show the mistreatment of African-Americans in the American justice system and the manipulation courts perform to convict accused African-Americans – even when they are innocent.

According to American history, prejudice is shown through the courtroom’s jury when making decisions to send the alleged African Americans to jail. On March 24, 1931, nine African American lives were jeopardized with the false accusations of rape that further scrutinizes the nation’s controversial look upon justice. Referring to Abigail Thernson and Henry Fetter when talking about The Scottsboro Trials it states, “Represented by unprepared out of date counsel who had no more than a half an hour consult

“The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is ‘a stimulant to the race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice, which the law aims to secure to all others.’” (72 A.B.A.J. 68, July, 1986) With the Court’s ruling new standards were set that required the defendant to show: --That they are members of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendants’ race --The defendants may rely on the fact that peremptory challenges are a jury selection practice which allow those who are minded to discriminate to do so --That these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 [1986])

However, those cases should be the only cases that would be permissible. As for reducing racial disparities in adult offenders, along with reformation of poorer communities, we need to focus on fair representation and sentencing for minorities. National surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice find that while African Americans may be subject to traffic stops by police at similar rates to whites, they are three times as likely to be searched after being stopped. The “war on drugs,” acknowledged above, has been a big success in many areas, but it also represents a substantial part of the imbalanced rates of incarceration. In 2005, African Americans represented 14% of current drug users, yet they constituted 33.9% of the people arrested for a drug offense and 53% of people sentenced to prison for a drug offense. Indication of racial profiling by law enforcement does not mean that all officers’ practice this way, it just goes to show that such behaviors still persist to some degree and clearly prevent efforts to promote racial justice. (Justice for All, American Bar

The foundation of the American Government is built on two ideologies; first, that the majority of the people govern through democratic election and second, that the power of the majority is limited to ensure individual rights. As defined by the American Heritage Online Dictionary a mother is a woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child. This paper will discuss the right of privacy of the mother versus the governments’ right to protect the unborn fetus in regard to Abortion.

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

So, being able to use a person’s race in order to get an acquittal and guarantee against double jeopardy, is a privilege that many jurors should be willing to utilize when need be. I agree that race-based jury nullification could be useful if there is a case that just does not seem right. All the evidence should prove that this individual is guilty; yet there is something that just does not fit right in the puzzle; or a person minority person is about to be sent to prison for breaking a law where it would seem that the ends to not justify the means. Instead of declaring a mistrial due to the jury not being able to come up with a decision, race-based jury nullification could be considered a good option if it is permissible at the time.

Similarly, there is need to examine whether race plays a role in determining if one is convicted or released. This is because an all-white bench convicted Hunt, who is of African American descent, of a crime he did not commit. Whether racial prejudice plays any role in our criminal and justice system needs critical examine since the law should be fair and equal before all. A non-discriminative judicial system will enhance public trust and eliminate cases of wrongful conviction.

Blackmun argued that the right to privacy, as defined in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, included “the abortion decision.” In the ninth amendment, Blackmun argued, was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However, despite this argument of a woman’s right to end her pregnancy being cover under the “right to privacy” as established in Griswold,

The selection process of juries was designed to select citizens that were equal peers of the person involved in the trial. However, many disparities exist and the selection process at times seems to be disproportionate relating to race or ethnicity. Reform of the legislature would benefit those that are not being properly served.

There are so many more African-Americans than whites in our prisons that the difference cannot be explained by higher crime among African- Americans - racial discrimination is also at work, and it penalizes African- Americans at almost every juncture in the criminal justice system.1

The rationality of those who support the punishment of addicted mothers focus on the idea that maternal conduct could lead to potential detrimental effects upon the fetus and that prosecution of such behavior would serve as both retribution for the fetus and as a deterrent. Whereas those who advocate for the pregnant women view this rational as not only impermissible but also unconstitutional as in current legal standing the fetus has no rights that usurp those of the pregnant woman (Stone-Manista, 2009, pp.823-856). Advocates also suggests that the breadth of forces that lead to drug use in pregnant women have a prevalent cultural and social foundation that the proponents for deterrence and retribution ignore in favor of strict scrutiny. This conflict between women’s rights and fetal rights has caused a paradigm in the prosecution of pregnant drug users as the interpretation of criminal sanctions argues over the definition of ‘child’ as encompassing fetuses in the definition would then lay the foundation for punishment for a woman’s conduct during pregnancy (Stone-Magnets, 2009, pp.823-856). Though currently it is unconstitutional and legally impermissible to prosecute women with state child abuse statutes in regards to drug use during pregnancy; advocates of fetal rights continue to follow

Having a diverse bench is critical to having a successful criminal justice system. The United States court system follows a presumption of innocence, meaning those who enter a courtroom are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not always found in the courtroom. Every courtroom actor, whether consciously or unconsciously, has a bias towards the defendant and may even presume guilt before the case begins. This is especially true when there is a white judge acting on cases involving a defendant who is a part of the minority. Judges who represent the minority are not only unbiased towards defendants of their own race, but they also bring new perspectives to the bench (Haire & Moyer, 2015). They present ideas, understandings, and

One of the diversity issues that arise from the group comes from having a jury with white males causes an inaccurate unanimous vote for the case relating to a Latino boy who stabbed his father. With a group of white males in the jury voting for the solution to the case, they might not be aware of the cultural implications of the background of the family and the background towards the case. The jurors were not educated about the subject of race and racism and the race was not considered within the case. Furthermore, the jury should be trained in considering the power and structure through the development of the group in a multicultural perspective (Eason, 2009, p. 565). The non-diverse white male jury would be able susceptible to a recapitulation of the dominant-minority relations seen through the jury (Eason, 2009, p. 565).