O. J. Simpson Conviction Highlights Broken Justice System

Regardless to what you think about the role O. J. Simpson played in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman, he surely doesn't deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison for the crimes he was convicted of in Las Vegas.

Even those with strongly held points of view toward O.J.'s guilt in the previous case will find it difficult to rationalize his guilt by an all-white jury in a case that was nothing more than a concocted ruse between several unsavory characters living on the dark side of our society.

The problem for blacks with this trial is that it highlights a more pernicious pattern of white prosecutors using all-white, or predominately white juries, to indict and convict black defendants across the country.

Barry Bonds has been indicted for lying to a grand jury about his alleged use of steroids. The prosecution's original case was so baseless that the judge asked them to clarify the questions Mr. Bonds were asked and his responses, and then resubmit their case. Obviously, the prosecutors believe, even if their case is weak, they have a good chance to convict him if they get predominately white jurors.

Michael Vick is in prison for participating in dog-fighting. Yes, it is cruel and inhumane to mistreat animals. It is also cruel and inhumane to kill helpless deer, quail, rabbits, moose, and other socially accepted practices for killing animals. Unfortunately, Michael Vick is in prison for admitting dog-fighting, and for participating in the killings of injured dogs. Meanwhile, the judges, congressmen, business executives, movie stars, and so forth who kill helpless animals are free to continue this socially accepted barbarism.

Michael Jackson was indicted and acquitted on charges that his attorney argued were baseless and should never have been brought to trial. Fortunately for Michael, his nearly all-white jury had the social integrity and moral principles to judge him based on the evidence presented to them. Nevertheless, it didn't stop the prosecutor from bringing the case to trial.

For many Blacks, the American jurisprudence continues to deny them and other minorities the "blind justice" afforded to most white defendants. Yet it is difficult, if not impossible, to find very many people who are willing to publicly state that the current judicial process for blacks is a disgrace to democracy, even a racial democracy.

Meanwhile, the proponents of this system acknowledge its inherent discriminatory practices toward blacks and other minorities, and argue fervently that "It may not be perfect, but it's the best system in the world." For whom? Surely, if you are a poor, or middle-class black charged with a crime, you can rest assured that you will mostly likely be indicted, prosecuted and convicted by a "blind justice" system.

One of the most odorous phase of denying blacks a fair trial by an impartial jury is the process used to select jurors. In many cities, jury pools have been gerrymandered to ensure that blacks and other minorities will not have all-black, or predominately black jurors, even in cities where blacks outnumber whites.

For example, in Oakland, California, a city where blacks represent the largest racial group, the jury pool is recruited from residents county-wide. Since the county is predominately white, this means that most of the jurors will probably be white. This sets up a scenario that ensures most black and Hispanic defendants, without sufficient funds, will face jurors who not only don't look like them, but also don't live in the same city.

Another equally troubling aspect of having different racial groups acting as peers for blacks is an inherent cultural bias endemic to their racial uniqueness. This cultural bias was born and bred in the family, school, and workplace values that we were all taught and expected to adhere to. They are the lens we use to see ourselves and others.

The basic problem that most white jurors face when judging black defendants is their cultural biases. They must go beyond what they have been taught and use different lens to see the defendant and evaluate the evidence. For most of them, it will be difficult to see someone like Brad Pitt and Bokeem Woodbine as equals under the law.

Whites are not the only race affected by their cultural biases; blacks are too. Black jurors use cultural biased views, which are bred from years of living as victims in this country.

From their victim beliefs, blacks tend to believe most black defendants have been unjustly charged by the policemen and white prosecutors. So a black defendant will at least have his or her peers judge the case with skeptical eyes, which means the prosecutors will have to present strong evidence to overcome their skepticism. This will usually produce a fair trial.

Any black attorney representing black defendants would be severely criticized if he sought to select an all-white jury rather than an all-black one. Most black attorneys would use all their preemptive challenges to ensure that some blacks were seated on any jury that involves black defendants.

So, before elated whites and apathetic blacks gloat or despair over O.J.'s conviction, they had better take a closer look at how this justice system is treating the minorities in this racial democracy. And for once realize that if blacks had the power to change the system, we would have already changed it. The power to change in a racial democracy rests with the group that has the most votes.