Neutrality and the Law
Is the law neutral? From a first glance response, the answer is yes. But, solely the way the actual words in which the law is written is neutral. Unfortunately, the outcome is not neutral, not fair, and not just. To begin, let's define some important terms. First, the legal system is to interpret and enforce laws. Read that sentence again. The legal system is to interpret and enforce laws. Neutrality can be defined as objective, unbiased, and/or impartial. In law, fair is characterized by honesty, justice, and neutrality. Lastly, just is described as morally right, or conformity to what has been considered to be fair and/or lawful. Therefore, when someone is reading the description of a crime that has been committed, without knowing any details of the suspect and/or the victim, the outcome should always be the same regardless of any other variables. Unfortunately, it is not.
So, while the law says it will treat everyone the same regardless, there are many different variables that intersect to contradict this claim making the law and the legal system a double standard. Let’s take a look at some examples:
Is the Law Neutral?
Race
The Sixth Amendment in the United States Constitution states that a defendant charged with a crime has the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Simply reading this, it is a neutral law. Yet, Blacks make up four times more than the general population in prison. It is important to note that Blacks are considered a minority in America, and that the statistics prove that different factors play an undeniable role.
Media coverage plays a role in reinforcing the public’s perception of crime and race. Many media coverage outlets portray Blacks as more violent than Whites and over-represent Blacks as suspects in violent crimes while they over-represent White victims in violent crimes.
There are many instances where Blacks face disparities in the processes and outcomes of criminal cases. First, Blacks typically are held in pretrial custody longer than Whites - on average 62 percent longer than Whites. Next, when a defendant is Black it likely will take longer to resolve than if the defendant was White - on average a 14 percent delay for the Black defendant. Additionally, Blacks are charged and convicted with more felony charges than White people. In fact, Blacks are charged 60 percent more felony charges than Whites. Lastly, Blacks on average receive harsher sentences. Blacks typically receive 28 percent longer sentences than a White defendant who committed the same exact crime.
Wealth
First, police like the reputation of solving crimes, especially those that are categorized as violent. With that being said, police tend to go to poor neighborhoods and arrest someone who fits the suspect's description. This is because they will not be able to pay bail and will not be able to afford a private defense attorney. Additionally, having a lot of money allows one to reach settlements before going through a civil lawsuit. Furthermore, 60 percent of American jails are filled with people who are awaiting trial. They have yet to be convicted, but are stranded behind bars because they do not have the means to pay their bail. One woman has been locked up because she cannot afford to pay the 2500 dollar fine imposed on her while driving with an invalid license whereas Robert Durst murdered multiple people and since he had money he paid his 300,000 dollar bail, but fled anyway. Clearly, wealth plays an unfair role in the justice system.
Fame
Fame can play a factor in the outcome of a criminal case. First, celebrities go through the process like an ordinary person, but rather than finishing the process, a judge may offer that this person receive preferential treatment. This reinforces to celebrities and everyday people that the crimes committed by celebrities should not be taken as seriously. Lastly, when a famous person is charged with a crime, many potential jurors will know the story and go in with a bias. While this could be a positive or negative for the defendant it is usually a positive because it is much easier to tell whether someone is against the defendant or a fan. Therefore, typically the only bias is in favor of the defendant.
Looking Deeper in how these Variables Intersect
Jefferey Epstein
Jeffrey Reiman said it the best: The rich get richer and the poor get prison. As an example, let’s look at Jeffrey Epstein. Through a mutual connection, Epstein was put in contact with a senior partner at Bear Stearns, a Wall Street investment bank. Within four years, Epstein worked his way up, and became a partner. Shortly after, he started his own firm, J Epstein and Co. Epstein was bringing in clients who were individually worth more than one billion dollars. This was just his fortune starting. Epstein had personalized private jets, owned a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and was dining with the rich and famous. Epstein thought he was immune to the law. In 2005, it was reported to investigators that Epstein had molested a 14 year old girl at his Mansion in Florida by having her give him a massage in exchange for money. After these accusations came to light, an investigation was underway in which there was strong evidence for sexual wrongdoing with minors. This was not part of Epstein’s plan and nothing was going to stop him. He hired people to stalk his victims and threatened the one who first came forward by having someone tell her “those who help [Epstein] will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with.” Epstein’s handymen would shine flashlights through the girls’ windows at night so they could not sleep, chased one of the accuser's parents off the road, and questioned people the victims had relationships with. In 2008, authorities and Epstein reached a deal. There would be no federal charges, and he would go to jail for 18 months. He only ended up serving 13 months. Not only was the sentence time offensive to victims, but the terms were even more pathetic. He was granted “work release” which allowed him to go to his office for 12 hours during the day, six days a week. There was one reason that this was the outcome: wealth. He had such wealth most people cannot even understand it. After raping and molesting supposedly more than 100 girls and young women (more are still coming forward today), the law failed to protect these victims because of money.
Note: According to the state of Florida, a person over the age of 18 who is engaging in sexual touching with a minor under the age of 16 is subject to 15 years in prison, a 10,000 dollar fine or both.
The wrongdoing started in Florida and was where he met most of his victims.
On April 25 1998, Officer Allen Gibson was gunned down and killed. While he was dying he told EMTs and first responders that it was two Black guys and one had dreadlocks. There were two young witnesses that police questioned about what they saw. One of the witnesses identified the suspect with dreadlocks, and it was not Richardson or Claiborne. A day after Gibson was fatally shot, Richardson was arrested and charged with the murder of Officer Allen Gibson. Two days later, Claiborne was arrested and also charged with the murder of Officer Allen Gibson. Originally, both Richardson and Claiborne plead not guilty, but soon plead guilty out of fear that they would be sentenced to death because of the nature of the crime and because their defense was a public defender assigned to them. Both men continued to make it clear that they had not committed this crime. Richardson pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years in a state penitentiary followed by two years of probation. Claiborne pled guilty to accessory after the fact of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 12 months in custody. While they thought they just had to do their time and then this nightmare would be over, the FBI proceeded to indict them for the murder of Officer Gibson and several fabricated drug charges. There was no evidence of any drug fabrications yet several drug dealers testified against Richardson and Claiborne so that their sentences could be reworked and they could spend less time behind bars. In the criminal case dealing with the murder of Officer Gibson, the jury acquitted both Richardson and Claiborne. However, both were convicted of one count of drug dealing and fabrication based only on testimonies from other drug dealers. The maximum sentence for a drug count charge is 20 years. The judge did something so unusual. He disregarded the jury’s decision to acquit these two men and sentenced them to life in prison because they had previously pled guilty.
Very rarely does a judge overturn a jury’s decision in a criminal case and in most of these cases it is only when they were found guilty and the judge has significant evidence to prove that the defendant is innocent. However, in this situation the judge took his power and said that their prior confessions contradicted their claims of innocence.
Terrance Richardson & Ferrone Claiborne
I do not think I need to describe Kobe Bryant to anyone. Everyone knows Kobe as one of the best basketball players of all time. Yet, while we praise him for his worth ethic, bringing awareness to girls basketball, and his unprecedented talent, there is a part of Kobe’s life that is not so praiseworthy. In July 2003, an investigation was opened in response to an allegation that Kobe had sexually assaulted a 19 year old woman. During this investigation there was no punishment from the NBA or the Los Angeles Lakers, the team that Kobe Bryant played for. The case was eventually dropped because the accuser refused to testify in court and that was the end of it. However, if there was an ordinary black male in your neighborhood who was accused of sexually assaulting a young woman, but then the case was dropped, would you want that person strolling through your neighborhood? So, why do we look at Kobe differently? We look at people differently because there are variables such as wealth and fame that dictate whether we should regard or disregard something like a sexual assault case.
Kobe Bryant
On January 18, 2015, Brock Turner raped an intoxicated, unconscious girl, Chanel Miller. Chanel Miller drank too much at a fraternity party at Stanford University when she was visiting her sister. Two graduate students saw Turner on top of Miller and rushed over to confront him. When the two bystanders approached him, Turner tried to flee, but these two men held him down until police arrived. Police peacefully arrested Turner and the same day he was released for posting his 150,000 dollar bond. Turner was charged with two counts of rape, two counts of felony sexual assault, and one count for attempted rape. On March 30, 2016, the trial concluded and Turner was convicted of three charges of felony sexual assault. During the trial, Turner’s father said in court “this seems like a steep price to pay for only 20 minutes of action.” The judge, Aaron Persky, sentenced Turner to six months in jail and three years of probation. Turner had to register as a sex offender for life and had to complete a rehabilitation program for sex offenders. After three months of jail time, Turner was released for good behavior. At the time of the incident Turner was a 19 year student attending Stanford University on the swimming team. As a result of this incident, Turner was banned from Stanford and USA swimming.
Brock Turner
What does this mean?
The law is written in a neutral way. The way in which it is written does not specify that different variables should impact the outcome of the case. To take this into account, let’s look at the Jeffrey Epstein case. If Jeffrey Epstein was poor, black, and did not have close political and famous acquaintances, this case would not have ended up the way it did. I believe if Epstein was black, poor, and did not have friends who were in positions of power, Epstein would have been arrested after the first accusation and none of these lenient deals would have been made.
If Richardson and Claiborne were white they would not have been charged with murder, the judge would not have overturned the jury’s decision to acquit them, and they would not have drug charges. Furthermore, if the roles were reversed and a white cop killed two black people, I can almost assure you that the cop would not have been arrested so fast, and who knows if he even would have been charged and convicted. This is just because of the color of their skin. Just by looking at these two examples, it is evident that while the law is said to be fair and just, the outcome is unjust.
Let’s go back to the Brock Turner case. Brock Turner had a fair trial with a judge and a jury. But, while he had a fair trial, it was unjust. Coming from a white, affluent family, Turner was able to hire a prominent defense attorney. This creates an unjust system of law because money allows certain people to obtain better defense than someone who cannot afford private defense leading to unjust outcomes.
Tying this all Together
Failure to abide by the law that is written in a neutral language has given rise to problematic and inconsistent legal results creating an unfair and unjust legal system. Simply put, the law cannot be neutral when the outcomes are not neutral and therefore, the law is not neutral. While some may argue that there is a base line and certain factors can put one above the law, the fact is these variables either help or hurt you. If you are white you are at an advantage just because you were born with white skin and born with some privilege. On the other hand, if you are black you are automatically at a disadvantage because of the color of your skin. If you have money you are at an advantage because you have the financial means to hire a private defense attorney who can put sufficient time and resources towards your case. On the contrary, if you do not have money, you will be assigned a public defender who is typically overworked and typically lacks experience. Additionally, if you are famous you will typically receive more lenient punishment, if any. Lastly, a lot of these factors intersect with one another. For example, Jeffrey Epstein was white, wealthy, and in a way had a position of power as he hung with other celebrities. If Richardson and Claiborne were white they may have never been arrested and charged with murder. If Kobe was not famous, the likelihood that Kobe would have spent some of his life in jail is very high. All in all, while we all say the law is neutral, the law cannot be neutral until the outcomes are. These social constructs are all products of political compromise and they must be suspended. If all men are created equally and everyone has the same color blood under their skin, there should be no aspect of a person that puts them above or below the law.
