Even children aren’t immune to racial prejudices. According to a new study from Georgetown Law, black girls between the ages of five and 14 are viewed as less innocent than white girls in the same age range.

Researchers surveyed 325 adults of various ethnic, racial, and educational backgrounds from across the U.S. The results reveal that black girls are viewed as more adult than their white peers at almost all stages of childhood, beginning most significantly at the age of five.

The report, Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood, was released by Georgetown Law’s Center on Poverty and Inequality, and builds on previous research conducted by professor Phillip Goff in 2014 regarding adult perceptions of black boys. Goff found that starting at the age of 10, black boys are more likely to be perceived as older and guilty of suspected crimes than white peers.

Black girls are more likely to be disciplined at school. Have stories/thoughts to share? Join #girlhoodinterrupted chat tomorrow at 1pm EST pic.twitter.com/fV4v84nbbG

— Center on Poverty (@GtownLawPovCntr) June 28, 2017

“This new evidence of what we call the ‘adultification’ of black girls may help explain why black girls in America are disciplined much more often and more severely than white girls–across our schools and in our juvenile justice system,” said Rebecca Epstein, lead author of the report and executive director of the center.

The Georgetown Law study is the first to focus on how people perceive black girls’ innocence and maturity relative to white girls.

According to a report from the U.S. Department of Education on racial disparities in K-12, black girls are suspended more than twice as frequently as white girls. Black girls are also expelled without educational services at higher rates than white girls. In adulthood, black Americans are five times more likely to be incarcerated than white people.

A snapshot of the data shows that adults also believe:

• Black girls seem older than white girls of the same age.
• Black girls need to be supported less than white girls.
• Black girls know more about adult topics than white girls.
• Black girls need less protection than white girls.
• Black girls know more about sex than white girls.

This information merely confirms long-standing beliefs for many within the black community. The researchers hope the data can be used as a call to action for policy makers and educators.

“These findings show that pervasive stereotypes of black women as hypersexualized and combative are reaching into our schools and playgrounds and helping rob black girls of the protections other children enjoy,” said report coauthor Jamilia Blake, an associate professor at Texas A&M University.  “We urge legislators, advocates and policymakers to examine the disparities that exist for black girls in the education and juvenile justice systems and to pursue reforms that preserve childhood for all.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Black Girls Perceived as “Less Innocent” Than White Girls Starting in Kindergarten appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down two mapped congressional districts in North Carolina on the grounds that Republican lawmakers drew them with the intention of diluting the African-American vote. In affirming a lower court’s decision, the justices found a narrow–and contentious–distinction between redistricting for political benefit, and redistricting with the intent to harm a certain slice of the electorate based on race.

The case, Cooper v. Harris, was the latest involving racially-motivated gerrymandering to reach the Supreme Court. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, state legislatures can redraw congressional districts based on a number of factors, partisanship being the most common. But although race can be one of a smattering of factors when redrawing a state’s districts, it can not be the predominant one.

“The sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The North Carolina districts in question include one of the state’s largest, District 1, and one of its smallest, District 12. Both are currently held by black Democrats, G.K. Butterfield and Alma Adams, respectively. According to Kagan, the Republican-held General Assembly fashioned the new congressional map after the 2010 census to devalue the black vote.

In District 1, after the census, black people of voting age rose from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent. In District 12, the percentage of voting-age black residents hit 50.7 from 43.8. Republicans argue that tilting the districts majority-black is within their legal limits, because distinguishing the black vote from the Democratic vote–a vast majority of black voters support Democratic candidates–is almost impossible.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that same point in his dissenting opinion: “If around 90 percent of African-American voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, as they have in recent elections, a plan that packs Democratic voters will look very much like a plan that packs African-American voters.”

He added: “If the majority party draws districts to favor itself, the minority party can deny the majority its political victory by prevailing on a racial gerrymandering claim.” Alito was joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, did not participate, because the case was argued on December 5, months before he was confirmed.

The court’s decision was welcome news for Butterfield and Adams. Butterfield said the decision “clearly reaffirms my position that the Republican-controlled state legislature unlawfully used race as the predominant factor” in gerrymandering. And Adams called for an independent redistricting commission in North Carolina, saying, “we should be working together to make access to the ballot box easier and more fair.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Finds Racial Bias in North Carolina Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a landmark ruling on jury secrecy, while declining to hear what would have been its first case on transgender rights. In Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the court ruled that if racial bias is found to influence a juror’s opinion, an inquiry into the jury deliberations–a secret practice–could be launched. The transgender rights case involved Gavin Grimm, a high school student and transgender man whose school did not allow him to use the boys’ bathroom. Here’s what you need to know about each case: 

Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado

In 2010, a jury found Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez guilty of sexually harassing two sisters in a racetrack bathroom. One of the jurors, a former police officer referred to as H.C., said he thought Peña Rodriguez was guilty “because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” according to sworn statements from his fellow jurors. H.C. said the defendant’s alibi witness was not credible because he was “an illegal,” the sworn statements said. 

On Monday, in a five-to-three decision, the Supreme Court found that racial bias on the part of a juror–like H.C. in the Peña Rodriguez case–warrants an inquiry into jury deliberations. “Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion. He added that for an inquiry to be justified, “there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed with Kennedy, while Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing for the dissenting opinion, Alito called the prevailing opinion “startling,” adding that “although the court tries to limit the degree of intrusion, it is doubtful that there are principled grounds for preventing the expansion of today’s holding.”

The Gavin Grimm Case

In 2015, a local school board in Virginia enacted a policy that students must use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate. This was a blow to transgender students who, like Grimm, want to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Grimm, represented by the ACLU,  challenged the policy in court. Last year, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the policy is unlawful, concurring with the Obama Administration that Title IX, which protects students from sexual discrimination, also protects transgender rights.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court’s ruling, sending it back for further consideration. The case would have been the first transgender rights case to appear in the highest court. The decision to throw away the case for the time being was likely influenced by the Trump Administration’s repeal of an Obama Administration directive requiring public schools to allow students to use whichever bathroom matches their gender identity.

“Thousands of transgender students across the country will have to wait even longer for a final decision from our nation’s highest court affirming their basic rights,” Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the New York Times.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Declines Hearing for Gavin Grimm Case, Issues Ruling on Jury Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

Capital punishment in the United States has long faced public scrutiny. The death penalty is a topic of debate among Americans largely due to concerns about its efficacy in deterring crime, as well as growing rates of botched executions. In 2016, the U.S. saw a record decline in death penalty use and public support. A number of states postponed scheduled executions due to drug shortages and botched executions. While capital punishment remains legal in 32 states, this number could steadily decrease based on the current political climate.

Current Death Penalty Trends

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reported that 30 people were sentenced to death in its 2016 Year End Report–the lowest number of death sentences since states began to re-enact death penalty statutes in 1973. It found that executions also declined more than 25 percent, with only 20 executions carried out in 2016 by just five states.  Public opinion polls show support for the death penalty at a four-decade low. At just 49 percent, support fell below 50 percent for the first time in 45 years, according to a study by the Pew Research Center. This is a seven point drop from the previous year.

The DPIC concluded that the number of people waiting on death row decreased in 2016, as prisoners either passed away in custody, or obtained relief from their convictions. There was also a decline in the number of counties in death penalty states pursuing capital punishment. This past year three states–California, Nebraska, and Oklahoma–overwhelmingly voted to reject propositions that would have eliminated the death penalty. In California there hasn’t been an execution since 2006, and yet residents still seem to be in favor of its use, when deemed appropriate. Geography also played a roll in American death penalty trends. Eighty percent of all executions in 2016 were carried out by only two states–Texas and Georgia.

Mental Health Issues

Historically, executed prisoners tend to be those who are the most vulnerable, with the poorest legal representation. The DPIC’s review found that at least 60 percent of executed prisoners exhibited a combination of mental health issues including: signs of mental illness, brain impairment, and low intellectual functioning.

In Texas, a mentally ill prisoner was executed who exhibited signs of mental illness since infancy and was diagnosed with a variety of mental afflictions by the time he was 18. Georgia also executed an intellectually disabled prisoner, who was black, even though he had an openly racist juror, a trial lawyer who slept through portions of the trial, and significant evidence of an intellectual disability presented in post-conviction proceedings. Additionally, six of the prisoners who were executed in 2016 were 21 or younger at the time of their offenses.

A case argued before the Supreme Court in late 2016 attempted to dispute the constitutionality of executing prisoners with intellectual disabilities. Moore v. Texas questions the “standards that may be used to determine whether a defendant convicted of murder is mentally deficient.” Lawyers for the defendant argued that Texas utilizes outdated methods of determining mental capacity, rather than the standards mandated by the Supreme Court. The defendant, Bobby J. Moore, has an average IQ of 70 based on multiple tests. Texas argued that there is no national standard for determining mental capacity; the ruling from the Supreme Court, while still currently unknown, will certainly have a profound effect on other states’ death penalty procedures.

Botched Executions and Experimental Drugs

The overall decline in the use of the death penalty may also be attributed to recent botched executions. Lethal injection, the most utilized form of execution, has a botched execution rate of 7.12 percent. All manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs that could potentially be used for lethal injections have enforced a strict ban on selling their drugs for that purpose; companies are no longer keen on associating any of their products with capital punishment proceedings.

Problematic lethal injection procedures have been of great concern for the past few years and have occurred all over the country. In Ohio, the prisons’ agency is attempting to obtain a drug that could reverse the lethal injection process if needed. If executioners were not confident the first three drugs rendered a prisoner unconscious, they would be able to use the drug to reverse the effects. This request comes after executions have been on hold in the state since January 2014, when a prisoner gasped and snorted during the 26 minutes it took him to die. Arizona’s last execution was also in 2014, when a prisoner took two hours to die after receiving an injection of the drug midazolam.

As recently as December 2016, a man executed in Alabama struggled for air, coughed, heaved, and clenched his left fist during the 13 minutes of his execution. Two consciousness checks were performed during the execution. The inmate moved his arm both times after the tests. The first drug used in the three-drug cocktail was midazolam. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in 2015 that the use of midazolam is constitutional, in spite of reports that the drug does not reliably render an inmate unconscious.

Despite its death row population remaining in limbo after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s capital sentencing system in January 2016, Florida is poised to start utilizing a new experimental lethal injection drug. Such a move is likely to cause more litigation in the coming future, as anti-death penalty advocates are troubled by the use of experimental procedures in lethal injections.

Efficacy in Deterring Crime and Racial Bias

Though capital punishment is employed to deter violent crime, there is little evidence that it actually does so. In a 2008 Death Penalty Information Survey, 88 percent of polled criminologists said they do not believe that capital punishment is an effective deterrent for crime. As recently as 2015, non-death penalty states had a murder rate of 4.13, while death penalty states had a murder rate of  5.15—a 25 percent difference. In every year since 1990, non-death penalty states had a lower murder rate than death penalty states. And in a 2008 poll of 500 police chiefs, the death penalty ranked last in their priorities for reducing crime.

Moreover, the racial bias in the criminal justice system is astounding. Over half of the current death row population since 1976 is non-white. Interracial murders also disproportionately target blacks. Since 1976, 283 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim; this is in stark contrast to the 20 white defendants executed for murdering a black victim. A 2014 study performed by Professor Katherine Beckett of the University of Washington, found that jurors in Washington from 1981-2014 were four and a half times more likely to sentence a black defendant to death than a non-black defendant.

Conclusion

The decline in the number of prisoners executed in 2016, as well as the decrease in the number of people sentenced to death, seem to signify a move away from capital punishment in the U.S. Such a drop in executions may be attributed to states putting their executions on hold after extremely troublesome lethal injection proceedings over the past few years, rather than a general shift toward other sentencing alternatives. Regardless of waning numbers, citizens voted in large margins to retain the death penalty in multiple states this year, indicating that support for the death penalty in particular cases is still acceptable to many. Whether any state protocols and procedures will change, however, depends heavily on Supreme Court decisions in the future.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the U.S. Slowly Phasing Out Capital Punishment? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch–a week or so before she leaves her post–announced reforms for the Baltimore Police Department, agreed to by the city and the DOJ. The reforms include increased community oversight, and improved recruitment and training policies. In a statement, Lynch said the reforms will help “ensure effective and constitutional policing, restore the community’s trust in law enforcement, and advance public and officer safety.”

The consent decree follows a Department of Justice report on policing in Baltimore that was released last August, the culmination of a year-long investigation spurred by the death of Freddie Gray in 2015. The report, which was based on data from 2010 to 2016, found that the Baltimore Police Department has “systemic deficiencies” in training, and policies that “failed to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively.” There was widespread racial bias in the department, the report found; police officers were also found to have used excessive force.

Lynch also said that a pending investigation into the Chicago Police Department will be released shortly, perhaps as early as Friday. According to a Chicago Tribune report, the Justice Department found that Chicago police violated the U.S. Constitution with some of their practices. The Chicago investigation began in December 2015, after a video was released that showed a Chicago police officer shooting and killing a black teenager, Laquan McDonald.

“Change is painful. Growth is painful. But nothing is as painful as being stuck in a place that we do not belong,” Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said at the time of the DOJ report. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department has investigated 25 law enforcement agencies across the country; 14 ended in consent decrees. 

These reforms come during a transitional period for the Justice Department. President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee, Jeff Sessions, has raised concerns that the Justice Department will shield police departments rather than investigate possible reforms. During his two-day confirmation hearing that concluded on Wednesday, Sessions was prodded about how he would enforce consent decrees, and if he would pursue the issue of police reform as attorney general.

“I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have individuals within a department that have done wrong,” Sessions said. “These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness, and we need to be careful before we do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Announces Reforms for Baltimore Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

Is controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s time in office almost up? On Tuesday, news broke that the federal government will file criminal contempt-of-court charges against Arpaio for ignoring orders from a judge. Arpaio was ordered to stop his anti-immigration policies in Arizona, but didn’t comply.

Two days later, activists from a movement called Bazta Arpaio stood outside of the Phoenix sheriff’s office holding a balloon modeled to look like Arpaio in handcuffs. Their organizer Del Palacio said: “The community is excited. They know that this is the best chance we have to get him out of office. Momentum is on our side.”

Today Joe Arpaio goes to court for violating a judges order. Who the criminal now, Joe? #bAZtaArpaio #NoMoreHate @CASEActionAZ pic.twitter.com/mDpT6Tiln2

— Hugo Soto (@HugoSotoLA) October 11, 2016

The group is urging Hispanic people to vote against Arpaio, both to kick him out of office and also with the hopes that it will increase voter participation. The sheriff is seeking a seventh term, and has also been campaigning for Donald Trump, so the new criminal charges came at a pretty bad time for him.

Members of the Bazta Arpaio group said that he has abused their community for a long time and it is time to get him out of office. They will focus on door knocking and campaigning in Latino neighborhoods and will also drive around a red bus spreading their message.

Berta, an organizer w #baztaarpaio and one of Arpaio’s victims, encourages voters to kick him out of office nov. 8 pic.twitter.com/VFzKX14nxN

— Tania A. Unzueta (@_LaTania) October 13, 2016

The court process has been going on since 2008, when some civil rights groups filed a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. This led to findings of a pattern of racial bias and in 2013 Arpaio was told to stop his immigration-enforcement operations. These included racial profiling of Hispanic people at traffic stops, patrols in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, and detaining people solely based on their perceived immigration status.

In May of this year the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, found Arpaio was guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring his orders. The official charges were announced on Tuesday. Arpaio has said he didn’t defy the orders on purpose. But if found guilty, the 84-year-old self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” could face six months in jail.

In his statement on the case, Arpaio blamed Obama for being corrupt and the DOJ of charging him for political reasons.

Here is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s two-part statement about the corrupt DOJ charging him for enforcing our immigration laws. It’s a MUST read. pic.twitter.com/7LhZQXectZ

— Jeremy Nolt (@RealJeremyNolt) October 11, 2016

According to experts, this is more of a symbolic move from the judge. “He’s really taking a stance that ‘Sheriff Joe’ is not above the law. That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior–even if you’re a very popular sheriff,” said criminal justice professor Cara Rabe-Hemp.

Arpaio is an outspoken Trump supporter who joined the fight to find out the “truth” about Obama’s birth certificate. He has also become known for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outside. No matter how the election in November goes, Del Palacio and other activists have their minds set on not letting him get re-elected as sheriff. “Regardless of what happens in the trial, we’re going to remain focused to ensure that his tenure ends on November 8” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Arizona Voters Come Together to Remove “America’s Toughest Sheriff”? appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore police officers routinely engage in unconstitutional searches and arrests, excessive force, and profiling of black people, says a report from the Department of Justice presented on Wednesday morning.

The 163-page report says this pattern exists because of “systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law.”

Unconstitutional stops and arrests

The report is not a pleasant read. While people living in the wealthy, predominantly white areas of Baltimore describe the police as responsive and respectful, individuals in the poor, mainly black neighborhoods, on the other hand, describe the police as disrespectful and not responsive to their calls. They are also often targeted for unjustified stops and searches.

The DOJ’s report presents numbers on how many black people were stopped, often without reasonable suspicion. In fact, many were stopped when simply standing or walking on the city’s sidewalks. In the report, an image of a police department permeated with racial bias emerges.

Black people accounted for 95 percent of the 410 people who were stopped 10 times or more in the five and a half year period of data collection. One man, in particular, was stopped 30 times in less than 4 years, without ever being charged with a crime.

.@TheJusticeDept: ‘BPD’s Enforcement Activities Disproportionately Impact African Americans’ https://t.co/c0KeX8WF4X pic.twitter.com/f2Q1I3wXUN

— DOJ Civil Rights (@CivilRights) August 10, 2016

The frequent disregard for the Constitution through mass stops, searches, and arrests seem to be due to the  “zero tolerance” policy from the 1990s, which rewarded officers who make a lot of arrests.

The Baltimore Police also may have been biased against women when handling sexual assault cases. Officers failed to properly and meaningfully investigate cases of sexual assault and also to collect and corroborate evidence supporting the women’s accounts. While the DOJ did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that policing in Baltimore amounted to gender-bias in violation of federal law, some bias appears to have affected officers’ handling of sexual assault cases.

What’s next?

The Department of Justice launched the investigation in the spring of 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray. Reforms to make necessary changes will probably cost tens of millions of dollars and may take several years. The next step in the process is for city and federal officials to negotiate a settlement and present it to a federal judge. The settlement will include a list of requirements that the Baltimore Police Department will need to meet in the coming years.

A positive note is that everyone the DOJ investigators talked to during the investigation agreed that the BPD needs major reforms, even current police officers and city leaders. The DOJ said it will talk to local residents to take their opinions into account during the later stages of negotiation.

“There’s going to be a lot of folks with a lot of ideas about what needs to happen now in the community and in law enforcement, and it’s been really important to us to be able to hear directly from community members,” Vanita Gupta, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, said to the Baltimore Sun.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baltimore Police: Racially Biased, Routinely Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

After spending the last three months reviewing 35,000 pages of Ferguson police records and other documents, Department of Justice investigators have found that despite the fact that African Americans make up just over 65 percent of the population in Ferguson, they accounted for 93 percent of all arrests between 2012 and 2014. Their findings confirm the public opinion theory that the department responsible for the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown is plagued with racial bias. The DOJ found that the Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of black people in the form of racial profiling, excessive force, and unsubstantiated arrests.

I invite you to read the full 102 page report courtesy of Vox here, but for the sake of time here are the more shocking stats regarding Ferguson police practices found in the report:

• 93 percent of the people arrested were black
• 90 percent of citations were given to black people
• 88 percent of cases where police reported using force were against black people
• 85 percent of vehicle stops involved black people
• 94 percent of Failure to Comply charges were given to black people
• 100 percent of police canine biting incidents for which racial information is available, the person bitten was black.

It gets worse. The report also included references to several racist emails by Ferguson officials, all of whom are current employees, sent through their official City of Ferguson email accounts during work hours on the taxpayers’ dime. Here are a few of DOJ officials’ descriptions of the outrageously offensive emails in the report:

A November 2008 email stated that President Barack Obama would not be President for very long because ‘what black man holds a steady job for four years.’

A May 2011 email stated: ‘An African-American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers.’’

A June 2011 email described a man seeking to obtain ‘welfare’ for his dogs because they are ‘mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are.’

An October 2011 email included a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, with the caption, ‘Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.’

According to CNN, the DOJ formally ended its investigation into Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Brown by choosing not to bring forth criminal charges, determining in another report that:

There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson’s stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety.

However, the investigative findings may provide little closure for a city still full of civil unrest, but very much in need of healing. Protest leaders are calling for the resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson and the disbandment of the entire department. Jackson’s resignation may in fact be inevitable, this report serving as a proverbial final nail in the coffin for him and his entire police force.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Finds Racial Bias in the Ferguson Police Department appeared first on Law Street.