YETMO

“Let’s Talk About the O.J. Case For A Change”

Rather than address the same old topics day in and day out, this article will deal with something different – the O.J. Simpson trial. Yes, this is still another in the interminable string of discussions about this case, which must seem to many as the only ongoing court business in the United States. There is an issue about this proceeding that bears some reflection and consideration.

O.J.’s situation provides another opportunity to examine the attitudes and perspective that Americans hold towards their criminal justice system based on their race. There is a dramatic difference in the way in which whites and African-Americans view the system. The former generally regards it as color-blind; the latter sees it as color-biased.

Simpson’s defense team recognizes this. They are all intelligent, effective barristers. Like it or not, they are playing the racial card before our very eyes. His lawyers have asked for, but were denied access to the military file of the L.A. police officer who found (planted?) the apparent mate to the crime scene’s bloody glove on the grounds of O.J. ‘s estate. Their goal is to show that the officer is racist.

Now the attorneys are merely doing what competent counsel is paid to do – defend their clients. On an individual basis, it’s hard to fault, but the potential societal backlash could be damaging. Damning large groups of people hardly fosters the commonwealth; it tends to polarize the community, and encourages separation and hostility. But the defense must do what the defense must do.

These lawyers are shrewd. They surely know that recent opinion polls tell a troubled tale: blacks and whites hold virtually inverse perceptions about the equity of our sacred judicial system.

The precise percentages will vary by case, how the questions are framed, etc. Numbers themselves, however, are unimportant. Whether it’s a 60 to 40 percent or 80 to 20 percent split isn’t really germane. It’s the story behind the numbers that is meaningful.

The bottom line is clear and reiterated time and time again; the majority of African-Americans feel one way about the impact of race in criminal cases, and virtually the identical percentage of Caucasians believes the opposite. Statistics for years have shown that blacks receive proportionally harsher treatment when looking at conviction rates, sentence lengths, and capital punishment cases. The data shows that there is a problem; it’s not just perception.

Rodney King’s trial raised this issue in the public’s eyes. Tell some whites that the beating would not have occurred if King were white and many will say: “no way!” Say the same to blacks and many will say: “no doubt!” We are living in a society with two racial groups firmly planted at virtual extremes on the continuum.

Lest I be accused of completely unwarranted hyperbole (I try to indulge only in healthy doses), many moderate whites and blacks hold largely similar and compatible sentiments about these and many other serious racial issues. But polls say that “most” whites and blacks harbor opposite views regarding the fairness of American justice at its most basic level.

Anecdotal information can be both illustrative and informative. In the O.J. case, my white friends are absolutely convinced that there must be some legitimate basis upon which to proceed against him. He’s too big a celebrity to be charged with a crime capriciously, let alone in American culture. He’s been so for the better part of two decades. No way can the police or district attorney act without just cause. Besides, if race were an issue, wouldn’t the presence of a black police chief prevent precipitous action?

From a practical viewpoint, many whites recognize and acknowledge the potential racial aspect and feel that the police and prosecutor proceeded very slowly before arresting him due to his prominence and possible charges of racial basis.

My African-American friends are far less convinced that O.J. was being given any sort of slack at all. The fact that a black of his stature would even be implicated in such a heinous a crime is prima facie evidence supporting their position. No way this would happen to Larry Bird unless the crime was captured on videotape. O.J. is no longer a celebrity; he’s just another black charged with a crime in a racially-biased system and he will be convicted. Many feel that bias is so ingrained and prevalent that white society practices it subconsciously, maybe even unintentionally. But such bias occurs everyday.

The problems inherent in this matter are considerable. We’re a seeming impasse. If blacks feel that whites can’t help their bias and discriminate freely, even unknowingly, how can progress be made? Can O.J.’s case, or any case with a black defendant, be judged only on the facts and not by litigants’ and victims’ races?

Patience and understanding are the keys to successfully overcoming such problems. We need to listen to each others’ fears and feelings. Education in the broadest sense of the word is most needed.

America has been grappling with racial matters ever since 20 blacks arrived in Jamestown, VA, in 1619. We are far from accepting each other and living in anything approaching perfect harmony. (We can’t even do that within racial classes.)

But who can deny the legal gains that have been made to advance racial equality? Of course, they do not ensure that people’s attitudes and feelings will conform to the letter and spirit of the law. Frequently, such laws unwittingly exacerbate the very behaviors (and feelings) that they try to eradicate. Some whites resent these laws and see them as unnecessary or insulting. Many others welcome them and hope they’ll usher in an era of racial cooperation and collaboration.

Meanwhile back in L.A., O.J.’s proceeding proceedeth. Only time will tell if there will be a racial backlash. I’ll be most interested in the public’s reaction to the fairness of the verdict – guilty or not guilty. Will it follow predictable racial patterns? Only time will tell.