Reference no: EM133276319

Case: During comments made in April of 2021, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, proclaimed that "America is not a racist country."

Whether or not people agree with that notion is a point of debate. What is obvious however, is that individuals can be racist irrespective of their own ethnic, socioeconomic or political background. As such, what happens when those individuals who have very narrow viewpoints and perspectives on race are either elected or appointed to positions of power and influence within government and the bureaucracy? In many instances they are now capable of using those positions and the systems in place to activate policies and actions that amplify their racist beliefs -- this is how racism becomes what many call -- systemic.

Consider that in 2005 and 2007 the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided the cases of United States v. Booker and Gall v. United States respectively. These cases effectively gave federal judges greater discretion during the sentencing phase of the criminal adjudication process. The belief was that providing an increased level of discretionary authority to federal judges in this area would result in more creative sentencing opportunities (i.e. rehabilitation programs, probationary options, etc.) The possibility that such authority could result in harsher punishments was never fully contemplated.

However, based on statistics from the "https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf." data reveals that prior to the Gall and Booker cases the disparity between sentencing times for white offenders compared to offenders of color was 5.5 percent. But following those cases the disparity increased to 15.2 percent in 2005 - 2007 and then increased again to over 19 percent from 2007 - 2016. What this meant was that offenders who were people of color, were being convicted of similar or the same crime as white offenders, but being given sentences that were almost 20 percent longer than the white offenders. Moreover, the diversity of our court system does not reflect the demographics of the country as 83 percent of judges are white. To be clear this does not mean that white judges are automatically predisposed to being racist or are somehow more racist than any other ethnic group of judges. However, there are other factors that must be considered.

found that prosecutors' initial charging decisions were a major driver of racial disparities in sentencing: All else held equal, African American arrestees were 75 percent more likely to face a charge with a mandatory minimum sentence than white arrestees. (Even for the same crime, prosecutors often have a variety of charges they can file.)"

Even in December of 2021, people called for the resignation of Louisiana Judge, Michelle Odinet, who was ultimately disqualified from working because her racial impartiality could not be substantiated. Ms. Odinet made comments while at home with friends but caught on camera where she watched security camera footage of an attempted break-in of a car in her driveway. The recording included the following comments:

"And Mom's yelling n*****, n*****," says one male voice, to which a female voice responds: "We have a n *****, It's a n*****, like a roach."

Question 1: The country may not be racist as a whole, but what should be done when there is evidence that individual racism is and has infiltrated systems within the country that have the ability to impact large groups of people who rely upon them (i.e. law enforcement, criminal justice, social services, labor and housing, etc.)?

Question 2: What kind of assurances can citizens have that judges, police officers, housing officials, etc. who should exhibit some degree of impartiality, are not instead basing their decisions or actions on a preference for or against a specific race, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ability, etc.?