“Revenge Killing: Race and the death penalty in a Louisiana parish” is a New Yorker story about a man in Louisiana sentenced to death after either a tragic murder or a tragic accident, depending on which medical expert you believe. As with similar stories from the magazine, the description of the legal process is thorough.
[Note: the New Yorker editors implied with their headline that this was a racially-motivated prosecution and verdict. The text of the article does not support that headline, however. The prosecutor admits to a prejudice against children of divorced and unwed parents:
[Prosecutor] Cox told me that in the past forty years he had never prosecuted a man between the ages of seventeen and twenty-six who grew up in a nuclear family. “Not one,” he said. He believes that the “destruction of the nuclear family and a tremendously high illegitimate birth rate” have brought about an “epidemic of child-killings” in the parish.
But there is no evidence that the prosecutor is prejudiced against anyone on any other basis, including the “race” characteristic of the headline. There were three black members of the jury and all apparently voted “guilty” for this defendant, who happens to be black.]
I will respectfully disagree with your belief that the prosecutor fails to demonstrate racial bias. I mean, I might not admit to not liking dogs, but if I mention I have a history of preferentially kicking any creature that has 4 legs and likes to urinate on fire-hydrants…mmmm… you might not want me dog-sitting for you.
When Cox reveals a prejudice against a specific demographic that is more prevalent amongst a particular community, I would argue he is by default prejudiced against that community.
Arguably, this article would have been a bit stronger had it focused less on this case, and more on the frightening numbers and behaviors of the Caddo Parish.
(http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/opinion/jamesgill/12008952-123/james-gill-capital-punishment-a)
I think Cox speaks in coded language, and even then, only just barely. And if by “no evidence” you mean we haven’t found his KKK membership card, well sure. But does the article have me convinced that I’d be much better off as a white man than a black man in his courtroom, or anywhere in Caddo Parish? In a New York City minute.
I’ve been reading this blog for awhile and have found myself agreeing with many assertions and found many points raised to be interesting, but every now and then something pops up that makes me wonder about philg’s judgment – how is this evidence of prejudice (“children from broken families should be preemptively locked up”) as opposed to just an observation (“I’ve observed this correlation”)? Did I miss a paragraph?
Racist or not, the article does a pretty good job of showing that Cox is an awful person either way.
Though, I think the article went overboard in defending Crawford’s character.
“He had an open warrant for marijuana possession. In the past, he’d been arrested for battery, after fights with girlfriends, and for minor infractions, like driving with his headlights off and not wearing a seat belt.”
Sandwiching ‘beating girlfriends’ between ‘possession’ and ‘not wearing a seat belt’ is ridiculous.
And the author’s claim that “[His mother] appeared to have internalized Cox’s criticisms of her son” is bizarre. His guilt might be in question, but that he has made terrible decisions in his life is established fact. His mother can clearly see that without Cox’s rants.
A terrible situation all around.