17-Yr-Old Black Shot: Perpetuating Fears of Ongoing Racial Injustice

It has only been a few weeks since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a Florida high school student who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain. Many are outraged that no charges have been filed yet against Zimmerman. It began on 26 February 2012, when Trayvon Martin was found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando. Several eyewitnesses report to police that they heard a scuffle, then a cry for help, and then a gunshot.

According to the Sanford police report, George Zimmerman, 28, is found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. Zimmerman has a bloody nose and a wound in the back of his head. Martin is unresponsive and pronounced dead at the scene. He has no weapons on him, only a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. They also did not run a background check.

On 9 March 2012, Martin’s family demanded that police release the 911 tapes or make an arrest, but police refuse to comment at that time. On 12 March 2012, ABC News uncovered questionable police conduct in the investigation, including the alleged “correction” of at least one eyewitness’ account. After an outpouring of support for Martin, many calling for Zimmerman's head, spearheaded by the family’s change.org petition entitled “Prosecute the killer of our son;” word spread quickly, with 250,000 signatures, and at one point signatures were pouring in at the rate of 10,000 an hour.

Once the case gained national attention, Sanford police department finally released the 911 tape (featured below) and were forced to admit to ABC News that investigators missed a possible “racist remark” by Zimmerman as he spoke to police dispatchers moments before the killing.


The 911 call displayed a bizarre, troubled sounding Zimmerman calling 911 to report a suspicious looking black kid wearing a “hoodie” and looking as if he is “up to no good.” Zimmerman was in his car and Martin was on foot. Zimmerman was staring at Martin and probably made him nervous, so Martin began staring back. Martin then walked closer to Zimmerman’s vehicle, no doubt trying to get a look at the man who was eyeing him.

The 911 operator explains to Zimmerman that an officer is on the way. Zimmerman then says, “These assholes, they always get away.” Zimmerman, an aspiring police officer, has just made a remark that can only mean that he has already assumed that Martin is a criminal, by using the words “these assholes,” or he was referring to “these assholes” as blacks; one can only assume which one he meant, but it was one of the two.

Then Martin began running away, as any 17-yr-old would probably have done if a stranger was stalking them from their car. It is here that Zimmerman says, “Fucking [expletive], he’s running away” (Believed to be “fucking coons,” the racial slur that was alluded to by police). Zimmerman then starts to follow/pursue Martin, clearly lowering the tone of his voice as he searches for him, as the sounds of wind slamming against the phone are heard. The 911 operator hears this as well and asks, “Are you following him?” Zimmerman replies “yea,” and the operator urges him not to. “Ok, we don’t need you to do that,” the operator says somewhat adamantly. Zimmerman says, “ok,” but clearly still follows Martin. Minutes later Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest and he died on the scene.

Aside from the fact that Zimmerman clearly took the law into his own hands and became a vigilante killer of an unarmed 17-yr-old half his size, police really dropped the ball here as did Seminole State Attorney, Norm Wolfinger. It is ludicrous for the Sanford police to say that they did not have probable cause to arrest George Zimmerman. Probable cause to arrest only requires that there be a possibility that a crime was committed based on known facts—and clearly when it comes to murder, police are normally much more stringent.

George Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged with second degree murder or manslaughter, and if he believes that it was self-defense he could raise that at the trial. In any event, Zimmerman remains in hiding and no charges have been filed against him as of yet. The Daily Beast reported that between Jan 1, 2011, and the night he shot Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman called 911 close to 50 times to report suspicious activity.

Today the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense is calling for a militia of 5,000 black volunteers to help capture George Zimmerman. “George Zimmerman was not a police officer he was a community volunteer,” said Mikhail Muhammad, Southern Regional Director of the New Black Panther Party. The black political organization has begun posting flyers calling for Zimmerman’s capture “dead or alive” and is offering a reward of $10,000 to the person who captures him. The party not only blames Zimmerman for the black teen’s death, but is also attributing the responsibility to Sanford Police and Prosecutor Angela Corey. “It’s time for us as black men to take justice in our own hands,” said Muhammad just outside the neighborhood where Martin was gunned down. “You kill mine god-damn it I got to kill yours” said Muhammad.

Meanwhile, Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat (NBA basketball team) wrote a tribute to Martin on his sneakers before a recent game. Wade said that his kids wear “hoodies”as well, and feared that something like this could easily happen to them, and he wanted to pay tribute to Martin and his family.

In a NY Daily News Poll, readers were asked if they believe Trayvon Martin would have been killed if he were white. Poll results from today show that 57% believe that if Trayvon were white the shooter wouldn’t have even bothered him, 22% think that the shooter wasn’t fixated on race, he was just trigger-happy, and 21% say they don’t know, but they believe that there is no denying that race played a factor in the shooting.

Part 2

Crime: Biological or Environmental?

When it comes to theories in a given discipline—in this case criminal justice—it is always best to use an interdisciplinary approach; that is, to take a piece of each theory to help solve the questions of causation. Both biological and societal traits are causes of crime. Perhaps the most misunderstood and misinterpreted of the two is biological. The problem with many biological theories of crime is that the results are bias and discriminatory, primarily against minorities. The problem with much of the results of these biological theories as they have some strengths, but more weaknesses—and prove to be very rigid in their approach. In protest of simply using one theoretical approach to crime—biological in particular—Nicole Hahn Rafter, criminologist at North Western University, stated, “…an issue as complex as criminality should not be oversimplified.” Moreover, many of the studies done that helped shape the core of these biological theories have come under much scrutiny as to their validity.

For instance, trying to prove such theories, many researchers have focused their attention on studying twins to see if there is any genetic basis for criminal behavior. Most of these studies consist of separating the twins, putting each in a different environment and studying their similarities when it comes to criminal behavior. Most of the results of these studies showed that there is a high degree of heritability involved in criminality. In his book, Gene Illusion, Clinical Psychiatrist, Dr. Jay Joseph, challenges these findings. Dr. Joseph argued that the separation of these twins was “questionable,” and that most of the twins studied did in fact grow up together in early childhood. He also stated that the researchers failed to share the raw data and the overall information of the twins studied. Additionally, Dr. Joseph concluded that researcher bias had influenced results, which included bias sampling of twins that were more similar.

Other biological factors of crime are much harder to argue against, and most surely contribute to criminal behavior. After all, there are many biological traits shared by those who are more violent. Most of these shared traits are in the brain, and many scientists and scholars are focusing more on neurological studies to help answer these questions. Frontal lobe damage has been correlated with inappropriate behavior and disinhibition, while temporal lobe damage is linked to irritability and aggression. Even the courts have accepted such results. In order for an insanity defense to be accepted, the defendant must have a mental disease or defect that causes him not to know the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his act.


The labeling theory is a very legitimate criminal justice theory because environmental causes of crime are the most accurate indicators. It is through interaction with others that individuals learn values and behaviors that lead to or thwart crime; hence the differential association theory. Social and political unrest is also a big contributor to crime in a region, which is the basis for the neutralization theory. Inadequacies in social structures, such as the unfair redistribution of wealth and the imbalance of opportunity, are drivers of criminal behavior. This is a postulate of the strain theory or the social disorganization theory. Again, one of these theories alone would not give a researcher the complete picture of crime causation. There are also several other environmental crime causation theories; but it is only with a multiple-theory approach that one can gain the understanding and knowledge needed to explain the complexities of crime causation.

The cultural deviance theory is true in one sense, but it stems from a racist and inferiority complex, and it remains poised to demean and hold inferior those who it identifies—i.e. the lower class. When people reference institutionalized racism; it is a theory such as this that they are referring to. This theory suggests that lower class cultures have their own set of goals and values that differ from other groups. This is a given and true only because of environmental circumstances, not biological, as it infers. It is this inference that makes it a discriminatory theory. Certainly those with less—be it money, food, or other resources—will strive for different goals, and thus retain different values. For instance, well-known psychologist, Abraham Maslow, explained human motivations in his hierarchy of needs theory. This five-level theory of needs proposes that people will only focus on the level of needs facing them. If an individual can not obtain food or water—which are the most basic of needs (level 1)—than they will not hold other needs—such as safety—as valuable as they would if they had food or water.

So, of course the cultural deviance theory is correct in its assumptions; but it is correct only because of the environmental constraints placed upon those in the lower classes and their neighborhoods. If we hold Maslow’s theory as a valid one; we must then look at the causes of what the goals of these lower class cultures are, as opposed to the upper classes, and they determine why their goals are different. If we do so, we see that their goals are more basic in nature, as upper class criticizes are closer to self-actualization (Maslow’s 5th level); thus changing the whole perspective on why the goals of both groups are so different.


Let’s look at one of the influences identified in the cultural deviance theory: urban lower-class areas produce subcultures that are responsible for the rise of crime. This is hard to argue, as the statistics speak for themselves, showing that this is true. The question is: why? Is this a biological circumstance or an environmental one?

Urban lower-class areas are very poor areas that do not receive the funding as do other areas. This has a negative effect on schools, hospitals, businesses, and just about everything else in the area. The level of poverty in these areas is worsened by the high number of people living in such a small area. The effect of cramming so many into as small area causes neighbors not to know each other; hence causing a disassociation or dehumanizing characteristic that breads crime—such as what occurred during industrialization period, circa 1790. This is a great example of the social disorganization theory (SDT) in action.

In fact, the SDT was developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the University of Chicago and the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago due to their studies of urban crime. Moreover, what they found was that the inner city neighborhoods in which they were researching maintained high rates of delinquency over decades, even though the racial and ethnic makeup of the population in those areas underwent substantial change. These “zones in transition (as described in the early SDT research),” which was changing from residential to commercial, are where the highest rates of delinquency were found. The Chicago sociologists conducting the studies emphasized that residents in this area were not biologically or psychologically abnormal.


Urban street gangs grew (and continue to grow) as a direct result of such conditions. There are three main reasons why kids join gangs: despair, poverty, and peer pressure
In conditions of poverty, where despair is a direct result, people see a gang as a way to band together with those who have a similar interest—making money. Most of these children do not see a way to make money legitimately; they do not feel like they have the opportunity to make enough money to do more than just survive pay-check to pay-check. They see gang life as a way to make more money than they ever could working a legal job. This includes selling drugs, committing thefts, and so on. Many of these children come from broken families, and gangs can fill that void by making members feel like family. It is this type of institutionalized racism that the labeling theory is referring to when proponents of the theory speak of the “self-fulfilling prophecy” and “stereotyping” associated with such labels. This type of labeling aids in the despair of inner-city youths and makes them feel as if they are bad eggs because they are seen as such, even before they commit crimes.

Gang violence is rampant in the United States. A federal report says that gang related violence in the U.S. is responsible for up to 80 percent of all crime in the country. An FBI Agent recently spoke to this increase in gang violence, saying “They evolve and adapt; they know what law enforcement is doing; word of mouth spreads quickly.” In an ever-changing world, this may be, in large part, because of the internet and gang usage and coordination. Another big reason for this is that many of these gangs are getting their drugs directly from foreign sources. This is no doubt a result of the growing drug trade via the Mexican drug cartels. Another big part of the problem is how long it takes for additional gang-prevention-funding to be allocated where necessary. In 2008, Seattle finally approved $500,000 in gang-prevention funding, but it took them a while to allocate the money due to governmental bureaucracy. While money for prevention is slow to be allocated, gangs in the area have surely made five0times that much money in the meantime. This raises another problem; that the money spent to fight these problems is far less than the money made by these gangs.

This problem is clearly one described by both theories. While there is no denying that urban lower-class areas produce subcultures that are responsible for the rise of crime, the reason for such—rise included—has to do, in part, with labeling and the way that these areas are perceived, from the outside as well as from the inside. Of the many theories that can be used to describe rising gang rates in these areas, the social factors, such as the broken window theory, that come to mind.

In 2008, the Human Services Department of Seattle wrote an 87-page report detailing the rise of gang violence in their city. One of the findings of the report was that “Nearly 80 percent of youths surveyed reported having a friend in a gang; while more than 50 percent said they had a relative who was a gang member.” With these kinds of numbers of association; it is clear that these problems are environmental in nature, and it is as they say, “People are a product of their environment.”

Two Landmark Cases: Plessy & Miranda

There have been several controversial and antiquated Supreme Court decisions throughout the history of the United States proving that the U.S. Constitution is an interpretive document that can have polarizing views. Many of the Supreme Court’s decisions, however, have seemed to embody the true spirit of the Constitution and still hold true relevance in society today, which protect those against possible injustices from authority despite being controversial at their inception. Two cases that speak volumes for such points are Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Plessy v. Ferguson



Homer Plessy was known at the time as an “octoroon,” which is an unflattering term for a person who is partially Black. During a highly volatile time in the racial history of America—when Jim Crow laws were being passed and Whites sought to establish control over state governments and race relations—a group of New Orleans Creoles and Blacks organized themselves as the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law. Plessy agreed to initiate the challenge on behalf of the group and he purchased a ticket for a journey entirely within the state of Louisiana.

Although he looked as though he was primarily White, Plessy was classified under the Louisiana code as being “colored” because he was one-eighth Black. Plessy made sure that he let the railroad and the conductor know in advance that he was Black, and he was later arrested when he refused to move to the “colored only” section of the couch. Plessy argued that the statute was unconstitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, but the Louisiana courts rejected his arguments; so he sought review from the Supreme Court.

The Fuller Court upheld the decision of the lower court by a 7 to 1 vote. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority opinion. Brown reasoned that the law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it provided separate-but-equal (SBE) facilities. Likewise, Brown wrote that the Thirteenth Amendment “applied only to actions whose purpose was to reintroduce slavery itself.” Brown added that separate facilities “do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other.”

Justice Marshal Harlan was the lone dissenter, which earned him the nickname “The Great Dissenter.” In his dissent, Harlan wrote the famous words “our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Harlan also warned his colleagues that their decision was as insidious as the earlier Dred Scott decision.

Miranda v. Arizona



Ernesto A. Miranda was a twenty-three-year-old man who was arrested at his home on suspicion of robbery. After being identified by the victim of a rape-kidnapping at a police station in Phoenix, Arizona, Miranda was taken into the interrogation room and questioned about the crimes. Miranda maintained his innocence at first, but after two hours of interrogation he confessed—both in a written and verbal confession—to robbery and rape. Miranda was later convicted of kidnapping and rape, as his written was used as evidence against him.

The case was contested and appealed to the Supreme Court over whether or not Miranda had been told that anything that he said could be used against him or whether or not he had been informed of his right to an attorney during the interrogation. The first was unclear, but police made a fatal (to the prosecution’s case) declaration that Miranda was at no time advised of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda’s lawyers argued that their client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney were violated by the coercive interrogation and the Warren Court agreed—but by a close margin of 5 to 4.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth or Sixth Amendments unless a suspect had been made aware of his or her rights,” upon becoming a suspect, and then the suspect had then waived them voluntarily. In decent, Justice Byron White wrote that the court’s decision had no “factual or textual bases” in the Constitution, and he added that there were no prior legal precedents to base the court’s decision on either. And has his grandfather did in the Plessy case, Justice John Marshall Harlan II was a staunch dissenter, writing that “nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.”

Miranda’s conviction was overturned, but he was later retried and convicted on the same charges (both) without evidence obtained in from his confession. The prosecution used the testimony of Miranda’s common-law wife, who claimed that during a prison visit Miranda confessed to her that he had rapped the victim. Miranda was later paroled in 1972 and stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976.


Influencing Factors & Political Climate

The political climate during Plessy v. Ferguson was one very similar to today’s climate in America. There was a widespread economic depression set off by The Panic of 1893, and realigning elections were taking place in which the GOP (Republicans) became prominent and monetary policies of each candidate became the dominant theme in their electoral campaigns. America was not far removed from its Civil War and the Spanish-American War spurred from events in Cuba starting in 1895.

The Civil War was a very pivotal time in America history, particularly in the shaping of race relations. The fact that the Civil War was not far removed from the Plessy decision, and that social and political views still somewhat favored the thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites, there is no doubt that political ideologies played a part in the decision. Seven to one in favor of SBE speaks volumes about the time period and many White peoples’ view of Blacks in America.

In regard to the Constitution and the philosophical underpinnings of the decision; Brown has a legitimate argument when it comes to the Thirteenth Amendment. There is no basis to contest this decision based on this Amendment, because it does not violate it or the spirit of the Amendment. Justice Harlan argues that the Thirteenth Amendment infers to all “badges of servitude,” suggesting that SBE is within that. This is, however, a hard case to make from this standpoint. Servitude (or a condition in which one lacks liberty) does not include SBE, because by the letter of the law under the separate-but-equal doctrine Blacks were entitled to receive the same public services and accommodations as were Whites. This was clearly not how it worked in practice; however, as facilities for Blacks were more often than not inferior to facilities for Whites.

It is also hard to make a legal argument against SBE under the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Justice Harlan tried to by attacking the decision based on the spirit of the Constitution and that SBE was in violation of this by tolerating the division of classes among citizens. Still, however, it is hard to make this legal argument within the text. For the time being, it had seemed as though those who were hell-bent on segregation had found a loop-hole in the Constitution that allowed them to sidestep this unethical and immoral practice by using heavily ingrained legal precedents.

A moral and ethical interpretation of this situation did not come for some years later. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the court began to repeal such restrictive laws when they concluded that “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place because separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” So, it can be said that, in this particular case, the law was restricted to and shaped primarily by the philosophical underpinnings of political ideologies as well as the changing philosophy of society and the social uprising of the civil rights movement—more so than by the actual text in the Constitution.

The political climate during Miranda v. Arizona was clearly more modern in terms of thinking. However, the country was going through tremendous changes in the 1960s (politically, socially, and economically). Activism was in full swill and at the epicenter of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. The 1960s saw a big rise in drug activity in America and a growing anti-establishment, rebellious subculture led by rock n roll and the hippie movement.

The Miranda decision was the most famous, and most bitterly criticized, confession case in the nation’s history. To those who opposed the decision, it was as though it symbolized the legal system’s determination to treat even the most despicable criminal suspects with dignity and respect, particularly those who attributed rising crime rates to lenient judges and softening laws that protected criminals more than law abiding citizens. However, the reality of this decision would come to serve all citizens of the justice system, and speaks to the underlying criminal justice philosophy of how the justice system is meant to operate.

Given the widely held view that police interrogations were largely invisible to the public; the philosophical underpinnings of the Miranda decision was that it helped even the average citizen from being taken advantage of by an already powerful police nation. The 1966 ruling was further enhanced and defined in later cases as well as was the philosophy behind it. In Michigan v. Tucker (1974), the court viewed the Miranda warnings as “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution,” but only “prophylactic standards” designed to “safeguard” the privilege against self-incrimination. Later still, in New York v. Quarles (1984), the court recognized the Miranda warnings as a “public safety” exception.

The Miranda decision was brought about to reinforce the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and ensure that the citizens were not being taken advantage of by police and the system in general for not understanding their options in such a pivotal situation. Dissenters to the ruling ultimately believed that the ruling would have a drastic effect and that once suspects were warned of their inalienable rights that they would almost always demand an attorney and deny police the ability to seek confessions. This flawed, and even dubious, philosophy suggests that most people do not know their rights and, therefore, the government will be better served by keeping a majority of its citizens ignorant. Moreover, it suggests that police are incapable of developing techniques to overcome such an obstacle as have educated suspects.

Both the Fuller Court and the Warren Court have viewed the Constitution very similarly, in retrospect. Both courts seem to have been bound by the social and political ideologies of their times, respectively. Certainly, the fact that the Warren Court came long after the Fuller Court, and the fact that time allows for an adjustment of thinking (corrective thinking) based on trial and error and things unseen at the time, plays a big part in each decision. Perhaps the biggest difference in the decisions was that the Fuller Court appeared to be viewing the Constitution with a more bias or prejudicial view, whereas the Warren Court appeared to be struggling more with the actual intention of the law rather than with trying to enforce their preferential beliefs onto the words in the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers & the Centralization of Power

Prior to the creation of the Constitution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation (circa 1781). Political leaders of the time, however, saw many flaws in these Articles that led to political, economic, and social instability. As James Madison stated, the “preservation of the union” was being “threatened” by the inadequacies of the Articles. The States had the power to tax imports and exports, making the national government’s role of negotiating treaties with foreign governments ineffective. With a host of other problems—such as the national government being subservient to the States, no independent executive, no national judiciary, laws governing commerce differing from state to state, and so on—proponents of change believed that it was the weakness of the national government that was seen as the cause of these inadequacies.

With these pressing issues at hand and critical change needed, a convention was held (at the request of Alexander Hamilton) from 25 May 1787 to 17 September 1787, to examine the problems of the nation and ideas for revising the Articles. What came of this, however, to the objections of some, was the replacement of the Articles of Confederation and not a revision. The replacement is known as the United States Constitution. During this famous convention the framers of the Constitution had several important issues to consider—none bigger than the concept of the centralization of power. The dilemma was that the framers wanted the national government to be a limited government, yet they wanted a stronger, more centralized, and supreme national government than what they had at the time. These somewhat polarizing philosophies caused quite a debate.

With the debates finally over and the new Constitution adopted, the framers had managed to strengthen the national government while still protecting the sovereignty of the States. Articles I, II, and III of the U.S. Constitution set forth the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, with the Tenth Amendment stating that the “powers not delegated to the three branches under Articles I through III are reserved for the States.” The Constitution was guided by three main concepts that prevented both the centralization of power and the death of State sovereignty: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. These three concepts allowed for the division of governmental power between the federal and state governments, the separation of governmental authority, and the prevention of one branch from possessing absolute authority over any particular function.

There are three important clauses in the Constitution that that framers instituted that enhance the power of the federal government, and represent exceptions to the concept of limited government: the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the supremacy clause. Whether the framers foresaw or not; these clauses have given the federal government great wide-reaching powers; thus, making the federal government a very strong central government.

Article I, section 8, clause 18 (necessary and proper clause) empowers Congress to take whatever actions necessary to fully enforce their granted power. This clause played a major part in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), wherein the Supreme Court upheld the power of the federal government to create a national bank. Article I, section 8, clause 3 (commerce clause) gives Congress the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. In 1937 it was used by the Supreme Court to uphold the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which states that business may have an economic impact on the nation, regardless of whether or not it is intrastate in nature; therefore, it is federal jurisdiction. Finally, the supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution states that the federal government is the “supreme law of the land,” and judges in every State shall be “bound by” federal law.

Dimensions of Racial Profiling & Institutionalized Racism in the U.S.

Racial profiling is a law enforcement practice that refers to law enforcement officials substituting race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, to any degree, for probable cause in deciding whether to engage in enforcement. By this definition, and by its nature, racial profiling is a matter of ethics, at its core. In other words; discretion is the right to decide or act according to one’s own judgment. A person certainly has a right to make his or her own judgments. This is not the problem, however. The problem is deeper than that. If the person’s core beliefs and ideals are immoral or unethical then their judgment will be distorted, consequently.

Racial profiling is based on the invalid assumption that a particular race or ethnicity engages in misconduct more than other races or ethnicities. According to Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, the practice of racial profiling exacerbates racism in society, and leads to the abuse and harassment of racial minorities. So, fundamentally, this practice tears at the very fabric of American ideals. Racial profiling is the product of unethical and immoral ideals and beliefs in action. It holds the belief that certain races are more prone to violence and criminal behavior without the actual science to back this up, which in many ways constitutes this belief as incoherent and invalid.

In fact, racial profiling has proven to be ineffective in the war on drugs. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that while officers focused on African American and Latino drivers in an effort to thwart highway-bound drug couriers, they found drugs more often when they searched whites (17 percent) than when they searched African Americans (8 percent). Similarly in the state of New Jersey, state troopers found drugs in vehicles driven by whites 25 percent of the time, by African Americans 13 percent, and by Latinos 5 percent of the time.

Most citizens expect criminal justice professionals to conduct themselves in an efficient and professional manner without expressing personal views and emotions. And because law enforcement is a profession, ethics and ethical conduct play an important role. Hence, this is why each of these professionals must adhere to a strict code of ethics and a code of conduct. The code of ethics states that an officer’s fundamental duty, among other things, is to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice. By conducting racial profiling, officers and authorizing departments are engaging in unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional behavior.

Racial profiling, in essence, is a result of beliefs, traditions, and stigmas that have been passed down through many generations. Racial profiling acts are not merely acts of profiling, but rather a testimony to the systematic racism that exists in America. For instance, simply stopping the practice of profiling would do little to change society’s underlying racist views and institutionalized racism that exists in America and thus does little to alter the attitudes that lead to police abuse.

American economist, Richard Zeckhauser, and Professor of Philosophy, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, identify racial profiling as a utilitarian issue (in terms of consequentialist and non consequentialist arguments). The utilitarian argument for racial profiling assumes certain crimes are committed disproportionately by certain racial groups. Kennedy argues that those who practice racial profiling have omitted the consequence of such a practice—the feeling of resentment among minorities, the sense of hurt, and the increasing loss of trust in the police (Kennedy, 1998). Most Nonconsequentialist arguments tend to enter the debate by way of rights and fairness-based objections to profiling.

The human mind was designed to fill gaps and make assumptions about the information coming into the brain. Our past influences the way we judge people; we relate people’s looks to their personality; we believe that others are like us, and our beliefs affects our judgment. It all starts with first impressions. People are forced to make snap decisions based on information that is coming our way. This is actually a defense mechanism that helps people stay out of harms way. However, this mechanism, much like any other, can steer people in the wrong direction when used incorrectly. When navigating this system people should understand and be aware that there are many things, such as stereotyping, that have the strong potential to highly affect our judgments.

According to a recent federal study, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be searched and arrested during routine traffic stops. Similarly, a 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics study showed that police were much more likely to threaten or use force against blacks and Hispanics than against whites in any encounter, whether at a traffic stop or elsewhere. “The numbers are very consistent” with those found in a similar study of police-public contacts in 2002, by bureau statistician Matthew R. Durose.

White people between the ages of 18 and 25 use marijuana at a higher rate than their black peers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; yet, blacks are arrested for marijuana usage at a much higher rate than Whites. For example, a 2010 report found that police in California’s biggest cities arrested blacks for possession at four-five, and even 13, times the rate of whites. Overall, research shows Black people in the U.S. are three times more likely than White people to be arrested and 10 times more likely to be jailed for drugs offenses, according to new research claiming to show the racial bias of the criminal justice system. What’s more disturbing is that there’s NO EVIDENCE showing that Blacks use or deal more drugs than Whites, which makes the war on drugs seem more like the war on Blacks.

In the 1970s, when racism was much more out in the open and some would say more prevalent, there were 133,226 Blacks in prison. Today there are nearly 1 million Blacks in prison (2010), (Approx. an eightfold increase). According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks comprised 12.6% of the US population, yet, account for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population. In 2009 Black males were incarcerated at the rate of 4,749 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of the same race and gender, while White males were incarcerated at the rate of 708 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. In fact, more Black men are in prison or in jail, on probation, or on parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began. “Most of that increase is due to the War on Drugs, a war waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color,” said Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

On December 31, 2005, there were 2,193,798 people in U.S. prisons and jails. The United States incarcerates a greater share of its population (737 per 100,000 residents) than any other country on the planet, by far. The U.S. has more people in prison than some industrialized countries have people. But when we break down the statistics we see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

U.S. incarceration rates by race (June 30, 2006):

• Whites: 409 per 100,000
• Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000
• Blacks: 2,468 per 100,000

Gender (June 30, 2006):

• Females: 134 per 100,000
• Males: 1,384 per 100,000

Males by race (June 30, 2006):

• White males: 736 per 100,000
• Latino males: 1,862 per 100,000
• Black males: 4,789 per 100,000

Males aged 25-29 and by race (June 30, 2006):

• White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000.
• Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000.
• Black males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That’s 11.7% of Black men in their mid-to-late 20s.)

Or you can make some international comparisons:

South Africa under Apartheid was internationally condemned as a racist society.

• South Africa under apartheid (1993), Black males: 851 per 100,000
• U.S. under George Bush (2006), Black males: 4,789 per 100,000

What does it mean that the leader of the “free world” locks up Black males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world?

The War on Terror Becoming “War on U.S. Constitution”

While the headlines are dominated by the divorce of Kobe Bryant, the fake death of Jon bon Jovi, and of course the Kardashians; 95% of Americans are unaware of a bill that is so unconstitutional that it will allow the government to decide who gets an old fashioned trial (along with right to attorney and right against self-incrimination) and who gets detained without due process and put into a FEMA camp. On 15 December 2015, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 has been passed by both houses of Congress separately, and a final version was approved by the Senate by a vote of 93 to 7.

The dangerous bill will allow the military to detain American citizens on American soil without due process. For the first time in our history, if this Act is not vetoed, American citizens may not be guaranteed their Article III right to trial. President Barack Obama plans on signing the bill into law tomorrow, according to reports coming from the White House. The Act legislatively codifies the President’s authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1031(a-e) of the bill.

Congressman and Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, said, “We have now institutionalized and codified martial law.” Mitt Romney was caught clueless at a New Hampshire Town Hall meeting and Newt Gingrich remains zipped on whether or not he supports this travesty to civil liberties of American citizens. The ACLU called it “an historic threat to American citizens,” and the bill was also criticized by the Directors of the FBI, the CIA, the National Intelligence Director and the U.S. Defense Secretary. Senator Lindsey Graham declared that suspected citizens open themselves up “to imprisonment and death. And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Just to be clear, this is not a republican vs. Democrat issue, as both parties almost unanimously passed this bill. Apparently, after all the gridlock in Congress, they can agree on at least one thing: taking more liberties away from American citizens. I don’t want to be put into a FEMA camp, so I will say that my last statement was just an attempt at being facetious.

Of course, the politicians will say we are just talking about a few cases. But in fact the sky’s probably the limit given the current legal ambiguity in the Patriot Act expansion of “material support for terrorism” to now include humanitarian aid and even mere advocacy speech without any need to prove an accused person intended to support any kind of terrorist violence. The Department of Justice has been currently using this ambiguity for over a year to investigate twenty three American citizens who are anti-war activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. Additionally, the "war on terror" will undoubtedly expand even more when it is de-linked from 9-11 -- see “The War on Terrorism Congress Never Declared -- But Soon Might” by Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor, expert on these issues and associate dean for scholarship at American University Washington College of Law:

...an individual may be detained for providing “direct support” (which, in the government's view, may be nothing more than minor financial or logistical assistance) in aid of “associated forces” that are “engaged in hostilities against...coalition partners.” Thus, the NDAA effectively authorizes the military detention of any individual who provides such assistance anywhere in the world to any group engaged in hostilities against any of our coalition partners, whether or not the United States is in any way involved in (or even affected by) that particular conflict.

Given this expansion of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force contained in the 2012 NDAA to encompass undefined “associated forces,” we could witness the US government targeting a large range of political dissidents, human rights activists, humanitarians, and maybe even “occupiers.”

One thing is for sure, though: the political, military industrial, corporate class in Washington DC continues to re-make our constitutional republic into a powerful, unaccountable Military Empire, which could now officially turn U.S. “emergency war powers” into those that trump the Constitution. After years of the rants from conspiracy theorists, it appears that they were correct: Martial Law is coming to our country.

Amanda Knox Hires Superlawyer: Looking for Book Deal

The Amanda Knox PR machine, headed by the Marriott Group, is still in full swing. This time, David Marriott announced that Knox has hired D.C. superlawyer, Robert Barnett "to represent her in discussions with various book publishers who have expressed an interest in Amanda writing a book.” Although Barnett does not call himself a literary agent, he knows his way around seven-figure deals (he’s also repped President Barack Obama, former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Rosie O’Donnell and Barbra Streisand) — and the Knox family liked the fact that he’s a lawyer with a powerful firm behind him. Barnett is charging a hefty hourly fee instead of the standard 15 percent commission.


“The thing about Bob is not only does he know how to negotiate on behalf of his clients, but he’s very well-connected in the media world and can help create the perfect launch for the book,” said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster, who’s worked with Barnett for decades. Marriott did not elaborate on those additional opportunities but said few details of a potential book had been yet decided by Knox and her family, including an advance or the possibility of co-authors.

“This is a case I have followed from day one and never, not even for one moment, have I doubted the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox,” said Seattle-based literary agent, Sharlene Martin, in a recent statement.

Sharlene Martin has certainly been on the Knox bandwagon from the beginning. In a response to my query back in January 2011, Martin snippily replied to me, “It seems to me that it is YOU who is trying to cash in her [Knox’s] misfortune by writing a book for which you have NO inside knowledge or cooperation.” Apparently Martin must not have been aware of the plethora of official information made public about the case, including Judge Massei’s 427-page summation of the original trial, Judge Micheli’s extensive report, and my affiliation with www.truejustice.org. In any event, Martin appears to believe that cashing in on the case is ok as long as you believe what she does.

Moreover, it appears that Martin is inferring that she knows more about the exclusive details of the case because she has spoken to the Knox family, as she also indicated in her response. I am assuming that by this she believes that this exclusive inside knowledge makes her an expert on Knox’s innocence; even though I have yet to find any credentials that she has any qualifications to analyze evidence or the like, and she has never publicly engaged in any discussion of why she believes Knox is innocent. Surely Knox’s parents have never twisted the facts in any way?!?!


Knox certainly has many questions to answer, as she was unable to truly clarify during the trial or otherwise. So it seems as though she may be willing to roll the dice and try to fool us once again with “the real” version of events in return for some much needed funding. Curt Knox and Amanda’s mother, Edda Mellas, who are divorced, have each said they’ve drained their retirement funds, taken out second mortgages and accrued credit card debt to pay for Amanda’s defense. The Knox family also have hundreds of supporters who have dug deep into their own pockets to support her, and some of them are now asking questions like: Why hasn’t she come clean as to exactly what was her role, how did things actually unfold, and what really happened?

In another related story, ANSA News has reported that Knox prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini’s, conviction has been reversed. Those who have been proclaiming Knox’s innocence have always used Mignini’s conviction to paint the prosecutor as crooked, and they used this as another reason for Knox’s innocence. Yet, surely there will be those who believe in Knox’s innocence that Mignini is still guilty, just as there are those who believe that Knox is still guilty even though her ruling was reversed.

Amanda Knox is still facing legal action for criminal slander brought by those she claimed maltreated her at an interrogation (not at the hands of Mignini). The next hearing on this case will take place in mid-May 2012. Meanwhile, we all anxiously await Judge Hellman’s sentencing report (which will detail Knox’s reversal), due out very soon. And of course, we also expect the prosecution to file an appeal (on Knox’s reversal) to Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation—to take place probably soon after Hellman’s motivation report is released.