Introduction
The article Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice system was written in December, 1995 in a Yale Law Journal by Paul Butler, and than later republished in 2015 in Introduction to Legal Studies. This article was published in North America, for academics in law stream, or anyone with an interest in law. The author poses different views on the racism in todays court rooms faced by African American, particularly by the men. In this essay, I will be analyzing this case from the perspective of white girl so I really can’t say shit on the subject.
Summary of Article
Paul Butler is an African American lawyer whom practiced as prosecutor (2) specializing in white collar criminal defense and civil litigation …show more content…
Butler uses cases and his own analysis of different outlooks on law to conduct his analysis. Butlers main arguments pertain to liberal critique and radical critique. The liberal critique is that the criminal justice system is controlled by white people, thus is inherently racist, not necessarily on purpose, but through the white supremacy that is throughout our culture (1). He than goes into the problems of this critique, such as how it does not explain the gap between violent black and white crimes. The radical critique illustrates that the law is racist because it is made by white people to protect their interests, with no regard to the effects it will have on the black community (1). This argument means that when black criminals are locked up, it is because white people created the situation that brought him to that point. Butler believes that the rule of law is a myth. The rule of law is that “any result can be derived from the pre-existing legal doctrine” (1), which basically means that law has the inability to be neutral. This is in relation to jury nullification, which means jurors acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. He then relates this practice to the slaver in the south making the point that African Americans did not deserve the slavery they were subjected too. White jurors have been known to not apply different laws in history to save African Americans because they felt they did not deserve the punishment. He makes the point that they are not judging the law as much as they are refusing to apply it to members of their own race. He makes sure to issue the point that thus may not always benefit African American citizens
The article Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice system was written in December, 1995 in a Yale Law Journal by Paul Butler, and than later republished in 2015 in Introduction to Legal Studies. This article was published in North America, for academics in law stream, or anyone with an interest in law. The author poses different views on the racism in todays court rooms faced by African American, particularly by the men. In this essay, I will be analyzing this case from the perspective of white girl so I really can’t say shit on the subject.
Summary of Article
Paul Butler is an African American lawyer whom practiced as prosecutor (2) specializing in white collar criminal defense and civil litigation …show more content…
Butler uses cases and his own analysis of different outlooks on law to conduct his analysis. Butlers main arguments pertain to liberal critique and radical critique. The liberal critique is that the criminal justice system is controlled by white people, thus is inherently racist, not necessarily on purpose, but through the white supremacy that is throughout our culture (1). He than goes into the problems of this critique, such as how it does not explain the gap between violent black and white crimes. The radical critique illustrates that the law is racist because it is made by white people to protect their interests, with no regard to the effects it will have on the black community (1). This argument means that when black criminals are locked up, it is because white people created the situation that brought him to that point. Butler believes that the rule of law is a myth. The rule of law is that “any result can be derived from the pre-existing legal doctrine” (1), which basically means that law has the inability to be neutral. This is in relation to jury nullification, which means jurors acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. He then relates this practice to the slaver in the south making the point that African Americans did not deserve the slavery they were subjected too. White jurors have been known to not apply different laws in history to save African Americans because they felt they did not deserve the punishment. He makes the point that they are not judging the law as much as they are refusing to apply it to members of their own race. He makes sure to issue the point that thus may not always benefit African American citizens