Judge Reduces Penalty for Death Row Inmate With Racial Justice Act

American history has been marked by struggles for racial equality since the nation’s founding.  Slavery, the elimination of indigenous peoples and the long establishment of “separate but equal” institutions have marred the legacy of the United State’s founding ideals of freedom. Today’s story adds another section to this long debate.

In a first test case, Judge Weeks utilized a recent 2009 state law, the Racial Justice Act, to overturn a death sentence for Marcus Robinson and handed the defendant life without parole instead.  The Racial Justice Act permits a defendant to overturn his or her death sentence by arguing that race was a determining factor in the trial if the defendant can prove at least one of three factors. The factors are 1) the sentence was imposed because of the defendant’s race 2) the sentence was imposed because of the victim’s race or 3) racial bias influenced jury selection. Robinson’s attorneys successfully convinced Judge Weeks that Robinson’s trial had been tainted by a racially biased jury selection process. Almost all 157 dead row inmates in North Carolina have filed for similar hearings. Other states, such as California, are expected to pass similar laws.

Proponents of capital punishment assert that the objective of this law is not racial justice, but the dismantlement of the death penalty. Although the majority of those on death row are African-American, not all of them are. Moreover, this law overwrites the inmate’s sentence not based on innocence or guilt, but on questions about the fairness of the criminal justice system’s objectivity. Indeed, the fact that Robinson’s sentence is reduced to life without parole is an indication that the man is still proven guilty of kidnapping, burglary and murder of a teenager. Even Judge Weeks, the judge who spared Robinson’s life, committed that Robinson’s crime was “unspeakably horrendous.” Robinson’s guilt was established in his trial and the question of a biased jury has had no impact on that status. In essence, Robinson’s sentence is being overturned because of society’s wrongdoing against Robinson’s ethnicity, NOT because of society’s wrongdoing against Robinson.

The assumption which drives racism, that ethnicity is more important than individual actions, is at work behind the Racial Justice Act. The difference is that while some innocent people are prosecuted because of the misbehavior of other members of their ethnicity, Robinson is not delivered the sentence he deserves because of the upstanding citizenship of fellow African Americans. Make no mistake, either outcome is horrible, but it seems America is becoming too focused on race rather than actual factors which prove innocence or guilt.

When we look at the history of other cases, such as the OJ Simpson Trial or the Trayvon Martin shooting, people are becoming divided over race rather than innocence or guilt. With regards to the Robinson case, this trend towards racial cheerleading does a great disserve to the victim and the victim’s family because Robinson has avoided his sentence on a technicality rooted not in the case, but in history which neither Robinson nor the victim’s family took part in.

For all the ironic pitfalls of this case though, we should remember that the criminal justice system exists to serve society as a whole. Although this particular inmate has already been proven guilty, future defendants whose guilt is actually in question may greatly benefit from the questions raised by this case and by the Racial Justice Act. More importantly, the criminal justice system must preserve its integrity and objectivity where possible. The judiciary may not want to become involved in politics, but that doesn’t mean politics won’t become involved with the judiciary.