Unequal Justice

Article by William J. Stuntz

Inequality is a core feature of American criminal justice, but its causes remain obscure. Official racism has declined even as the black share of the prison population has risen. The generation that saw the rise of enormous, racially skewed punishment for drug crime followed the generation that saw the rise of civil rights for black Americans and racially integrated police forces. What explains these trends? One answer — the decline of local democracy — has received too little attention in the growing literature on this subject. A century ago outside the South, high-crime city neighborhoods were largely self-governing; residents of those neighborhoods decided how much criminal punishment to impose, and on whom. Those locally democratic justice systems were both remarkably effective and surprisingly egalitarian. During the latter half of the twentieth century, local democratic control over criminal justice unraveled. Residents of high-crime cities grew less powerful; suburban voters, legislators, and appellate judges grew more so. Prison populations fell sharply, then rose massively. The effects of both the fall of criminal punishment and its subsequent rise were disproportionately felt in urban black neighborhoods. The justice system grew less equal, and less just.

Parts I and II of the Article explore these trends. Part III turns to the future, and asks what steps might be taken to reverse them. I suggest three changes: better-funded local police forces, more trials to locally selected juries, and more vaguely defined crimes (to give those juries opportunities to exercise judgment). Those changes would make urban criminal justice more democratic, more lenient — and more egalitarian.



121 Harv. L. Rev. 1969 (2008) | DOWNLOAD PDF | LEXIS NEXIS | WESTLAW



MORE FROM THIS ISSUE

BOOK REVIEW: The Consultants' Republic

NOTE: The Immunity-Conferring Power of the Office of Legal Counsel

NOTE: The Alien Tort Statute, Forum Shopping, and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Norm

NOTE: Rule Porousness and the Design of Legal Directives

NOTE: "Trading Action for Access": The Myth of Meritocracy and the Failure To Remedy Structural Discrimination

NOTE: Cross-Jurisdictional Forum Non Conveniens Preclusion

NOTE: Shifting the FISA Paradigm: Protecting Civil Liberties by Eliminating Ex Ante Judicial Approval

RECENT CASE: Seventh Circuit Holds that RICO Conspiracy Charges Can Proceed to Trial Despite Unresolved Double Jeopardy Claims. - United States v. Calabrese, 490 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2007)

RECENT CASE: Third Circuit Holds that Government Appeals of Alleged Plea Agreement Breaches by Defendants Are Reviewed De Novo. - United States v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007)

RECENT CASE: Seventh Circuit Holds that a Codefendent's Repeated and Violent Outbursts, Coupled with Intimidation from the Gallery, Denied Defendent a Fair Trial. - United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2007)

RECENT CASE: Federal District Court Denies § 230 Immunity to Website that Solicits Illicit Content - FTC v. Accusearch, Inc., No. 06-CV-105, 2007 WL 4356786 (D. Wyo. Sept. 28, 2007).

RECENT CASE: General Court of Qatif Sentences Gang-Rape Victim to Prison and Lashings for Violating "Illegal Mingling" Law.

RECENT LEGISLATION: Congress Considers Bill To Invalidate Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses for Consumers, Employees, and Franchisees. - Arbitration Fairness Act 2007, S. 1782, 110th Cong. (2007)

RECENT PUBLICATIONS: Recent Publications


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)