The Supreme Court decision upholding the unimportance of “racial” “prejudice” in death penalty cases has come in for much criticism, especially from Blacks and others who are not objective about the issue.
The statistical evidence suggests that killers of whites are sentenced to death far more frequently than killers of blacks. This occurs because in our system, a man deserves what he goetz. More importantly, scientists have shown that Blacks are more prone to death than Whites—witness the choke hold,* higher infant mortality rates, and so on and on and on.
The decision, written by Justice Powell, states that the defendant must show that the judge or jury in this case acted out of prejudice. It is not enough to show a statistical pattern of discrimination in general. It must be shown that, statistically, this particular Black person will be sentenced to death more often than a White person in a similar case, all other things being equal. Since the court system requires that a single case be the basis for a sweeping decision, it might appear at first glance that overall patterns are considered irrelevant to the courts. Better perhaps not to take that first glance, but rather go directly to the conclusion: the pattern exists, but not in this case.
Furthermore, the Court requires proof that race is an issue in America, and this study is barely out of its second century, hence inconclusive so far. Besides, a decision that there is in fact race prejudice involved in death sentences would open the door to similar discrimination decisions regarding members of a multitude of “Other” groups seeking to redress so-called “statistical” perceived “wrongs” through “class action suits,” and could eventually lead to the redistribution not only of death sentences but of income itself.
Mary Beth Westmoreland, an attorney for the state, argued that Blacks are more often killed in family disputes, while Whites are more often killed in robberies. This means that if Blacks would just stay home and kill each other, instead of Whites, everything would be fine.
The Washington Legal Foundation, a public interest group within the American political spectrum, applauded the decision, saying that “statistics have no place in the courtroom.” The courts cannot take up their time muddling through demographic data for each murder case; America is not a demography.
Deputy Attorney General Michael Wellington had commented before the decision that if the courts approved the logic of the deathophobes, it would indicate a conclusion that “the American people are inevitably incompetent to administer it.” This would mean one of two things: either a race-dominated nation cannot have a death penalty, or a race-dominated nation should not exist. But we must exist, except for some of us. Fortunately the question is moot, since the United States is not a race-dominated nation. We are governed by the free competition of ideas and products—that is, television networks. We are not dominated by race, unless you count Japan.
It might be noted that if one more Justice had sided with the dissent, the decision would have gone the other way. The losing side should take consolation from the existence of two points of view in our society; perhaps someday the pendulum will swing their way. In the meantime, everyone has his day in court, and some even get their own chair.
*Studies conducted by a select group of police sergeants in Los Angeles County.