@snood,
snood wrote:
Okay, I hear you about the possibility of various circumstances that would render my question unanswerable by a yes or no. Let me ask you this:
All other things being equal, do you agree that it is more likely for a white victim of police misconduct to get a conviction on the police perpetrator than for a black victim?
Here again, it's not as simple as you would make it out to be, because I'm not at all certain you and I would agree in every instance as to whether the cop's actions constituted misconduct.
However,
in cases where you and I both agreed that the cop was guilty of misconduct, generally speaking, I do think that it is more likely that the cop would be convicted if the victim was white than if he or she was black. I suspect we probably disagree on just how much more likely and under what circumstances it would more likely or roughly the same, but I'm comfortable with answering your question in this way.
I think the reason for this being the case is not overt racism on the part of so many jury members, but prejudice based on many people's perception of life in black communities. Crime statistics concerning young black men and low income black communities contribute to a perception that can but need not be accurate and so, I'm sure, does the Media and popular culture. Thug chic is no more a reliable indicator of individual propensities than heroin chic, Gothic chic, or any style fad that lends itself to young people posing as someone
darker than they really are. A black kid who walks down the street with a hoody pulled down to partially cover his face and who affects what he believes to be a menacing swagger can easily be an A student who has never gotten in real trouble in his life but just wants to look cool.
(I sure as hell don't think anyone black or white (because there are plenty of white kids who have adopted thug chic) is cool because they look like a thug, but that's the whole point. I also don't see the cool in looking like a heroin addict or a ghoul from a cheesy horror film (aka a "Goth"), but all of these looks, of course, share something in common which makes them attractive to kids: Ordered, conventional society (including authority figures like their parents) generally hates them.)
Of course this doesn't mean that a kid who adopts the persona of a thug should be treated like one in the absence of actual thuggish behavior, but given human nature it's a risk they run (and probably don't appreciate as much as they should) to cultivate a cool image.
For a combination of reasons, people on juries tend to believe that black kids are likely to be thugs and especially if they dress like one. No doubt about it that this is prejudice and should never come into play in a jury's decision, but it sure seems clear that on too many occasions it does. At the same time, I think a white kid who tries to come across as a gang-banger through the way he dresses, talks and acts is likely to find himself the victim of prejudice in these situations too. The big difference, though, is that he has a better chance of shedding that image with a haircut, clean shaven face and a nice suit than a black kid probably does.
Now a white kid who actually is a thug; who has a juvenile criminal history, jailhouse tattoos on his neck and/or face, and talks like a punk is going to find himself at a great disadvantage too if he has a run-in with the police; even if he's (this time) 100% innocent (and alive). Of course if his parents are affluent citizens with any measurable influence within the Establishment he's on much firmer ground that the poor black or white thug. The threshold for affluent black parents being able to influence the process, I suspect is much higher than it is for whites, but power is power regardless of skin color, and a black parent with real power can influence the fate of his or her child in a criminal proceeding (racial equality in that regard certainly has improved).
What is most troubling to me though is that while I can't prove it and I doubt anyone can, I think that even young black men who cultivate an image that coincides with their regular civil and legal behavior are more likely to get caught up in the prejudice involved here. If there's a confrontation between a young black man and a cop and if it leads to violence and the death of the young man, too many people are prone to believe that the kid had to have somehow been at fault. I'm sure there are some who think this way about anyone who has a confrontation with a cop, but, in my opinion, it's far more prevalent when the victim is black rather than white.
This prejudice exists and it shouldn't, but it doesn't mean that every time a cop who kills a black man and goes free or every time a black kid is killed by a cop or convicted of a crime, the outcome can be attributed to prejudice, and I truly believe that people who seem bound and determined to make every one of these cases about skin color and prejudice are contributing to the toxic mess, not helping to clean it up.
