Emily Badger clearly doesn’t live in Texas. Her take on “stupid things we used to believe about poverty” are still going strong in the Lone Star State and in the great American heartland generally. While the charts below indicate that progress has been made in the last couple of centuries, the last three decades have seen the creation of a dramatic wealth gap that is commonly presented as a necessary condition of economic health. Get too concerned about the guy at McDonald’s toiling for minimum wage and the big boys would be out of business. Then where would we be?
Meanwhile, poor people are still demonized as a matter of course. Any suggestion that poverty is “constructed” or that a link exists between unemployment and crime is rejected out of hand (in places like Texas, at least). We commonly face the myth of false alternatives: either criminals bear the full responsibility for their choices or society is to blame. The idea that social pressures and bad decisions might be mutually reinforcing never comes up for discussion. (more…)
Moments after the verdict in the George Zimmerman case came down I argued that a jury without a single African American lacked the social knowledge to get it right. To understand this case, in other words, you had to be able to view Zimmerman’s actions through the eyes of Trayvon Martin. You have to be open to the possibility that the young Black man was standing his ground when confronted.
Most Black people instinctively get this; most White people don’t.
As you might expect, I took a lot of heat. When the post appeared on the Associated Baptist Press blog, half of the comments were deleted as offensive or overly personal.
Readers were particularly offended by my assertion that the jurors in this case were out of their depth.
Now we have interviews from one juror who believes that George Zimmerman’s heart was in the right place when he left his vehicle in pursuit of Trayvon Martin; four jurors who say they strongly disagree with that sentiment and, most recently, revelations from Juror B-29, the only non-White juror.
Two of Juror B-29’s comments are noteworthy; but only one is getting a lot of attention. First, she told ABC that, in her view, Zimmerman “got away with murder.”
Secondly, and more significantly, she explained why the jury hadn’t convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter. “What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter,in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home, he said, I’m gonna go kill Trayvon Martin.”
Dozens of news outlets have reported on the “he got away with murder” comment, but hardly anyone noticed Juror B-29’s appraisal of manslaughter or realized that she is dead wrong. The jury was wildly off the mark on manslaughter, because, as I initially surmised, they were out of their depth.
When jurors asked the judge for clarification of the manslaughter charge they were met with silence. It had all been explained in the final instructions to the jury. If they didn’t catch the definition the first time, too bad.
Here’s how manslaughter was defined to the jury:
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
The state didn’t have to prove that Zimmerman was negligent when he pulled his gun or when he pulled the trigger; merely creating a scenario in which a dangerous physical altercation was a likely outcome was sufficient.
Unfortunately, the prosecution made no attempt to make this case. Murder 2 was a hard sell. It forced jurors to guess how things played out between the two men leading up to the discharge of the weapon, and we simply don’t know enough to fill in the blanks.
So why didn’t the prosecution make a case for manslaughter–the only charge supported by the facts? Because to do that they needed to talk about racial profiling and they clearly didn’t want to go there.
White public opinion is split on the profiling question. Some think Zimmerman was justified in profiling Martin because everybody knows how those Black thugs are. And there are those who don’t think the aggressor in this story profiled Trayvon at all. He left his vehicle because he needed a breath of fresh air or wanted to take in the scenery and just happened upon the man who, moments earlier, prompted his 9-1-1 call. No wonder prosecutors didn’t want to mess with race–White jurors hate that kind of talk.
Public opinion surveys suggest that Black people were three times as likely as Whites to have a problem with the outcome in this case. It all comes down to the issue of profiling and whether you identify emotionally with Zimmerman or Martin. That’s why jury composition means everything in this kind of case. It should come as no surprise that the only juror who thinks Zimmerman dodged a bullet is non-white.
I generally ignored the Zimmerman trial unless it happened to be on at the gym while I was lifting weights. Having twice been at the center of media feeding frenzies, I am no fan of the phenomenon. As the coverage of Jurors B-37 and B-29 demonstrates, most reporters have more interest in the killer quote than uncovering the social significance of the stories they cover. Journalists love to talk about race and crime, but they are after the heat of warring talking points not the light of discovery.
The Zimmerman trial matters because of what it says about the impact of racial experience on the criminal justice system. The media has little interest in understanding the news or helping us understand the events unfolding around us. If you missed Marty Kaplan on Moyer’s and Company a couple of weeks ago, check him out. Scary stuff; but he’s bang on target. When the media simply repeat the talking points of political hacks (or attorneys) they aren’t giving us the news, they are being used. And so are we.
Just over three years after Curtis Flowers was convicted for murdering four people at a Mississippi furniture store in 1996, his attorneys have filed an appeal. You may wonder how it could take three years to compose an appeal brief, especially in a case so open-and-shut that a jury took only 29 minutes to render a guilty verdict.
This wasn’t Curtis Flowers’ first courtroom rodeo. In fact, he has gone to trial on these charges six times, more than any other capital defendant in the history of American jurisprudence.
Convictions in Flowers 1 and 2 were reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court due to gross prosecutorial misconduct (primarily arguing facts not in evidence) and racially biased jury selection procedures. Other trials ended in hung juries, largely because DA Doug Evans, fearful of another reversal, didn’t take heroic measures to keep African Americans off the jury. In the most dramatic case, five Black jurors voted to acquit while seven White jurors found Evans’ case convincing. (more…)
A week ago I wrote two posts related to the composition of the jury in the George Zimmerman case. In the first, I said that common sense suggested that the defendant would be found guilty of manslaughter. The prosecution had only Zimmerman’s description of the altercation between the two men to work with and that made Murder 2 a tough sell. But the fact that none of the six jurors looked like the victim in this story troubled me. My fear was that the jurors would understand why Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin’s presence in the neighborhood suspicious and potentially dangerous. A single Black juror would have challenged this identification and argued for another way of reading the story.
My second post (which also appeared in the Associated Baptist Press) argued that the jury, though conscientious and well-intentioned, lacked the social experience and the cultural competency to sift through a blizzard of legal considerations.
Most readers who bothered to comment were unimpressed. Some felt that race had no bearing on this case, so the racial composition of the jury didn’t matter. Others insisted that Zimmerman received what the Constitution guarantees: a jury of his peers.
As Bill Stuntz observed shortly before his death, Black jurors are commonly tried by predominantly White juries who are inclined to side with authority figures like police officers and prosecutors and subject to racial bias. (more…)
Attorney General Eric Holder addressed Stand Your Ground laws in his remarks to the NAACP convention. Here is the core of his position:
Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the “if” is important — no safe retreat is available.
But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and — unfortunately — has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation — we must stand our ground — to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.
We must also seek a dialogue on attitudes about violence and disparities that are too commonly swept under the rug — by honoring the finest traditions established by generations of NAACP leaders and other nonviolent advocates throughout history; and by paying tribute to the young man who lost his life here last year — and so many others whose futures have been cut short in other incidents of gun violence that pass, too often unnoticed, in our streets: by engaging with one another in a way that is at once peaceful, inclusive, respectful — and strong.
As we move forward together, I want to assure you that the Department will continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law. We are committed to doing everything possible to ensure that — in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community — justice must be done.
I remember back in 1978 when Harold Lindsell published Battle for the Bible. I was in my final year at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. None of my professors thought much of Lindsell’s diatribe. In fact, he was written off as a silly man with antiquated ideas.
Forty-five years later, Lindsell’s Simple Simon theology is the controlling ideology at my alma mater and throughout the evangelical world. To argue otherwise is to surrender your orthodoxy card.
The change didn’t come gradually. In fact, it all happened while I was working on my doctorate at Southern. When I arrived in 1989, the school was much as it had been in 1978, moderate, cautious, and, within strict limits, tolerant of theological diversity. There was no room for genuine liberals, of course (this is the Southern Baptist Convention we’re talking about); but God-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it conservatives were also not welcome.
By the time I walked across the stage to receive my diploma from newly installed president Albert Mohler the school had changed beyond recognition. (more…)
I thought these thoughts from Jim Wallis of Sojourners were particularly helpful and to the point. AGB
It’s time for white people — especially white parents — to listen, to learn, and to speak out on the terribly painful loss of Trayvon Martin.
If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack he would have come back to his dad unharmed — and would still be with me and Joy today. Everyone, being honest with ourselves, knows that is true. But when black 17-year-old Trayvon Martin went out that night, just to get a snack, he ended up dead — and is no longer with his dad and mom. Try to imagine how that feels, as his parents.
It was a political, legal, and moral mistake to not put race at the center of this trial because it was at the center from the beginning of this terrible case. Many are now saying, “There was a trial; the results must be accepted.” How well the case against George Zimmerman was prosecuted, how fair the tactics of the defense were, the size and selection of the jury, how narrowly their instructions were given — all will be the subject of legal discussions for a very long time. (more…)
The reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict shows that most white Americans are down with racial profiling.
The upshot of this verdict is that white folks can stalk and confront young black males without justification and shoot them dead if they choose to defend themselves. This might not be laudable behavior; in fact, it might be downright tacky. But it isn’t illegal.
Technically, the reverse is true: young black males can stalk and confront white folks and shoot them dead if they resist . . . but, as a practical matter, stand-your-ground logic only works for real Americans. (more…)
Editors note: Pierre shared his experiences with restorative justice at our recent Common Peace Community gathering. This piece originally appeared in the Huffington Post.
By Pierre Berastain
On June 22 and 23, I made a promise to individuals typically considered convicted murderers, thieves, and drug dealers, most of whom are serving at least one life sentence for their crimes. I have sat on my thoughts and words for a few hours now because, in all sincerity, whatever I see on my screen seems lifeless, devoid of everything I experienced in the company of these men. Yet, I made a promise to tell the story of those two days.
With the help of my friend and colleague Professor Karen Lischinski, the men from the Restorative Justice Group at MCI-Norfolk Prison worked for many months to host a two-day restorative justice retreat behind prison walls. Let me repeat: The men serving time at Norfolk Prison helped put together a retreat meant to inspire inmates to rehabilitate, mend the harms they have caused, and make promises to the community in and outside the prison walls that they will live more honest and honorable lives. The experience felt transformative. (more…)
By Alan Bean
Attorney General Eric Holder addressed Stand Your Ground laws in his remarks to the NAACP convention. Here is the core of his position:
By Alan Bean
By Alan Bean
Editors note: Pierre shared his experiences with restorative justice at our recent Common Peace Community gathering. This piece originally appeared in the 
Friends of Justice 