One of the more insidious forms of racism in our criminal justice system is not the fire-breathing bigot- the stereotypical KKK member in a white hood burning crosses. It is the structural racism that hides behind process, polite conversation, rationalization and the “common sense” reality of Denialism that too many average White Americans share about race, in which the outcomes impact Blacks in a negative way. This is true whether we are the victim or the defendant. This type of racism works best when our society denies its existence because, if it is hidden, we can pretend not to see it.
One of the more frustrating conversations with some White Liberals at Daily Kos is when Denialism results in structural racism being ignored or reduced in importance.
The data is irrefutable. When Blacks are involved, the bias of race becomes apparent. It repeats itself in study after study.
Here’s an example of one:
Racial gap in pot busts extends to SF
The divide in marijuana arrests - which the ACLU attributed to a "staggering racial bias" - persisted even though black and white people have been found to use pot with similar frequency, the report concluded. It questioned the high cost of marijuana enforcement at a time when Americans are increasingly favoring legalization of the drug…
Black residents made up 6 percent of San Francisco's population in 2010 while whites comprised 55 percent. The ACLU report said that of 298 marijuana possession arrests that year, 99 were black suspects and 195 were white suspects.
http://www.sfgate.com/...
Here’s an example of another:
According to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), 56% of death row inmates are black or Hispanic. However, although racial minorities comprise half of all murder victims nationwide, a far greater proportion (77%) of the victims in capital convictions were white. The racial identity of the murder victim is thus a leading factor in determining who receives a death sentence in America. Amnesty International also reports that 20% of blacks nationwide were convicted by all-white juries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
When we look at the Zimmerman result, it is not unexpected in the rationalizing racist structure that we have seen throughout the criminal justice system. Indeed, Juror B37’s honesty, if one is not in complete denial, did us a favor: It let us look behind the curtain of how bigotry works today. It works through denying race matters while acting on racial assumptions. “Reasonable doubt” to her was her speculation about the “magic black thug,” who with superhuman powers can overcome the laws of physics to obtain reasonable doubt.
The Black Agenda Report explains this “reasonable doubt” (the words remain the same, but the substance of what people mean when they say reasonable doubt differs according to race):
The white public at-large shares with Zimmerman the belief – a received wisdom, embedded in their worldview – that young Black males are inherently dangerous. From this “fact” flows a reflex of behaviors that, to most whites, are simply commonsensical. If young Black males are inherently dangerous, they must be watched, relentlessly. Black hyper-surveillance is the great intake mechanism for mass Black incarceration. Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watchman, was acting on the same racist assumption that motivates police across the country, which is why the cops in Zimmerman’s trial were more valuable to the defense than to the prosecution. The same goes for the prosecutors and judge, much of whose daily lives are organized around the inherent dangerousness of young Black men.
Naturally, the cops testified that they saw no racial animus in Zimmerman’s actions – just as they would deny that their own hyper-surveillance of Black communities is motivated by animus. The jury, like the vast majority of white Americans, approves of the Black surveillance regime, and of those civilians that also keep an eye out for “crime” – which is synonymous with “Black males.” As juror B37 put it, Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place” – meaning, she saw Zimmerman’s profiling and pursuit of Trayvon as well-intentioned and civic-minded; clearly, not malicious. Something “just went terribly wrong" – an unfortunate turn of events, but not a crime. The unanimous verdict shows the other jurors also perceived no malice – no racial motivation – by Zimmerman.
http://blackagendareport.com/...
What appears to be a legal discussion is, in fact, one about confirming one’s cultural bias against Blacks or for Whites. “Reasonable doubt” is form with Juror B37 rather than substance. It is the empty cup in which she poured her racism.
This hiding behind form is apparent unfortunately at Daily Kos and in the media. Its apparent with the way the Zimmerman trial was adjudicated. Race was denied as an issue in the case by the judge.
None of the jurors thought race played a role in the case, Juror B-37 told CNN's Anderson Cooper. In fact the question of Zimmerman profiling Martin because he was African-American didn't even come up in deliberations, the juror said.
No wonder it never came up. At the beginning of the trial, the judge forbade the prosecution from speaking about racial profiling. Only the word "profiling" could be used, Judge Debra S. Nelson ruled. "Criminal profiling is based on behavior," NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said on Democracy Now! "Racial profiling is based on color and on race. And the reality is that it appears that George Zimmerman had a pattern of confusing color with grounds for suspicion.
http://truth-out.org/...
When people speak of reasonable doubt, it should be understood in the context of cultural bias about how they see the victim and how they see the defendant. The cultural bias masquerading as “law” continued even until the end of the trial when the jury received its instructions:
The prosecution asked the judge to instruct the jury that it could consider who was the first aggressor in the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin. If the judge had agreed to give that instruction, the jury might have concluded that, by following Martin, Zimmerman provoked a physical response from Martin. The defense objected to the instruction, and the judge decided not to give the first aggressor instruction.
The jury was instructed to consider only whether Zimmerman reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself - when he later tussled with Martin on the ground. The jury was also told Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, that he could stand his ground, and meet force with force- including deadly force - if he was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place he had a right to be. Finally, the judge instructed the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.
The instructions prevented the jury from considering whether Zimmerman was the first aggressor when he got out of his truck and began following Martin.
http://truth-out.org/...
Denialism through the shell game of “law” can make it easy to hide structural racism. In fact, this Denialism, whether with this case, about the SYG laws in general, or with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling about voting rights, is the cornerstone of modern racism.
If we want the system to change, if we want fewer Trayvon Martins, the things that need to happen are (1) the end of Denialism and (2) the end of structural bias. SYG is a symptom of deeper problems. When we address these problems, racial progress will be possible.