Because of perceived mistreatment of African American by the criminal justice system, Jury Nullification has become controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants (McNamara & Burns, 2009). Within this paper an explanation will identify if ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices, summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Additionally this paper will include a contemporary example of ethnicity-based jury nullification and conclude by selecting a position for or against ethnicity-based jury nullification while defending the position. Ethnicity Influences Ethnicity not only influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices, but also practices prior to and following. Because racism still exists within the world, it will continue to overlap within the criminal justice system.
The idea behind this research is to try and point out some of the disparities in sentencing, and possibly offer some potential ways to reduce the problem. “Racial disparity in sentencing, historical representation of current biases, plea bargaining and racial profiling are all factors contributing to the current over-representation of minorities in the judicial system, further threatening the African American community and weakening the family. Aggregate data and statistics compiled supports the assumption that African Americans are disproportionately subjected to conditions such as racial profiling, traffic stops leading to searches and seizures yielding minor offenses that lead to incarceration, rather than probation or rehabilitation. Further, they are given much longer, disparate prison sentencing than white offenders under similar circumstances. These systematic disparate treatments contribute to a dysfunctional community and lead to the socioeconomic destruction of the African American family infrastructure.” (Coulson-Clark, et.
Challenging Racial Disparities Sara Plautz Cultural Diversity Issues in Criminal Justice CJA 344 July 25, 2011 Christopher Moreno Challenging Racial Disparities The wide-ranging effects of disparity in the criminal justice system are explored heavily. Race differences in criminal issues and racial patterns have been deep important topics open for discussion. The mystery is finding a better resolution for disparity issues in society. There are many challenges that impact the disproportionate rates of colored people in diverse neighborhoods. In our society it is assumed we are all treated equally, but in fact many times this is not true.
This is “the practice by law enforcement of considering race as an indicator of the likelihood of criminal behavior” (Robinson 530). The issue of using race to identify people is disputable because minorities feel that it is an act of inequality and also humiliating. However, the Supreme Court supports its legality as long as ethnicity is seen as an important factor that determines the detainment of an individual. Therefore, there are many pros and cons about the legality of this law enforcement technique. During times of war, racial
Race-Based Jury Nullification Race-based jury nullification has been in the criminal justice system for many years. It is known to be the most debatable topic amongst citizens, whether they support it or against it. A person should be judged on the sources of the law. When race-based jury nullification became noticeable and a serious problem, many communities made sure a specific amount of minorities are placed on a jury to ensure there’s not as many cases where racial biases could ultimately determine the final decision made on the defendant. On top of making sure there is a certain number of minorities constitute every jury, judges encourage jurors to enter the jury room mindful that race has no final say so on the final decision.
If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system. Racially based jury nullification is and has been a continuous debate for a long time now. Racially based jury nullification may be a benefit in addressing an unfair justice issue while sentencing someone. When it comes to proving that discrimination exists in terms of someone’s race and affects the severity and length of the sentence issued, this is when jury nullification benefits justice issues. If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place.
Over the past five centuries, black people have endured violence in many different ways. In history, racist violence, police brutality, has been used to suppress the racial blacks and to preserve power and privileges for the white race. The practice of police brutality has a strong affect on a main segment of the American population. Those affected are minorities and the elderly causing them to have strong hatred towards the whites in America. Police brutality is abuse by law enforcement, where a police officer feels that because he/she has a badge and a gun therefore it puts them above the law and they can use unnecessary force against another individual.
Racism can be one of the leading causes for the nullification of a verdict. The same racism exists today driving juries to nullify the law in favor of or against a person charged with a crime. The ethnicity of jurors can influence whether or not nullification takes place. “Jury nullification is often attributed to juries that identify with and share the same characteristics as the defendant, such as the defendant’s racial or ethnic background, socioeconomic status, or value system. The occurrence of this type of nullification has been attributed to a potential response to social conditions, including the perception that the criminal justice system targets minorities,” (Keneally, 2010-2011, p. 945-946).
Mainly African American men suffer with such cases as the right to vote when considered a convicted felon. I think the glass escalator effect would prove to be a consideration for men in such positions as child care, teaching, and even parenting in some cases. In these positions a woman is assumedly more able to handle these positions as opposed to a man, and in many cases the profession is dominated by women. Glass ceiling is a suffrage by the males and females of this ethnic group based on the fact that a woman may not move up based on the fact she is a woman. Take for instance the presidency of the United States of America.
The Judicial System being made up of the federal and state courts hear distinct sort of cases and are responsible for their own system but usually both systems cross paths. Both also head concerns with race-ethnicity or gender because of inequality and social delamination (Farree and Hall, 1996; Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2006). According to an article in this week readings, Does Gender Modify the Effects of Race–ethnicity on Criminal Sanctioning?, it establishes “that female defendants receive more lenient sentences than male defendants and that black and Hispanic defendants receive less favorable treatment than white defendants.” Giving “women of color” the upper hand in their gender more so than anything and influence is merely persistent with the male gender. Other courtroom controversies arise through stereotypes, myths, and misunderstandings between different ethnicities and their beliefs and standards which can all be intertwined within the courtroom. The U.S. Constitution gives each individual their own protection rights but as seen in many of cases can be overhauled based on a judge or jury decision and their individual influences.