Since the early 20th century, minorities have been striving for equality in the United States. Much progress has since been made in the form of anti-discrimination laws and desegregation, but while many advances have been made in the civil rights movement, inequality has not been escaped. Minorities are still fighting inequality while institutional racism battles against them. Currently, the legacy of racism is preserved in laws, rules, and governmental practices. The way that the death penalty is administered in capital cases, search and seizure procedures, minimum sentencing policies and lack of protection against discrimination are all ways that the government reinforces racism in American society.
The legacy of racism is apparent in the way that the death penalty is administered. Studies have shown that prosecutors will seek the death penalty more often and juries will impose the penalty more often if the victim of the crime is white, as opposed to black. Jeffrey Abramson, We the Jury 234. The race of the defendant is not nearly as important and in fact, there are more white people on death row than there are black people. Id, at 213.
[...] If crack cocaine is predominantly associated with urban minorities and the penalties for crack are greater than for powdered, associated with upper class whites, then the penalties are designed to punish minority users to a far greater extent than white users. The policies are further unjustified in that, as mentioned previously, crack cocaine and powdered cocaine are identical drugs. This discrimination in sentencing is a deliberate policy arraignment that supports the incarceration of minorities in America at a higher volume than whites. [...]
[...] Perhaps the most prominent is in the disparities in punishments for use and possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. While the drugs are pharmacologically identical, possession, use and trafficking of crack cocaine, carries stiffer penalties than powdered cocaine. In 1986, Congress set five grams as the amount of crack cocaine needed in possession with intent to sell to incur a five-year penalty, whereas the amount set for powdered cocaine was a significantly higher five-hundred grams. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of U.S.C. [...]
[...] The Cleveland police detective in this case acted properly and the weapons found were properly admitted into evidence. Id, at 33. At the time that the police detective walked up to the three men, he did not have probable cause, as needed and outlined by the Fourth Amendment, to search the men. The Court, in its ruling, legitimized their inherently unconstitutional search. As a result, what is now known as a “Terry Stop” is a Supreme Court invitation for racial profiling. [...]
[...] white man and life for the defendant who killed the black man. The jury as well can make this same decision when imposing the death penalty. All the decisions are strictly subjective. Without any objective standards for the prosecutors and juries to follows, who gets the death penalty and who gets life in prison can whittle down to a one's personal biases. The entire process of death sentencing is responsible for this policy. It dictates the subjectivity of the decision, thereby allowing for racism to occur. [...]
[...] The Bill gives black veterans federal grants to use on their education, but their options are limited and those available options are most often so deprived of resources that a proper and adequate education may not be had. Id at 132. The GI Bill promised many benefits to all soldiers, but because it left the doling out of funds and benefits up to the lenders and service providers, racism and exclusion still occurred everywhere. This form of unintentional racism is just as detrimental as intentional accounts of racism because even though the consequences of such policies are quite immediately apparent, the government chose to do nothing to rectify the injustices, allowing them to further occur. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
