The publication is reproduced in full below:
SYSTEMIC RACISM IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address systemic racism in the judicial system. I believe one of the best ways to explain this and help persons understand with some degree of clarity is to use an example.
Let's use an example of a 25-year-old White man. Let us assume that he is jogging through a neighborhood near his home. Let's assume that he is accosted by three Black men in a truck with a liberation flag on it. And let us assume that when they accost him, one of them has a shotgun and there is an encounter with this person, who happens to be a Black man. The White man is jogging, the Black men are pursuing, and now there is an encounter.
Let's assume that this Black male shoots the White man, and in so doing, a case is brought to court by way of a video. Let's assume that in this case, the prosecutor is Black, that the judge is Black, and let's assume that the defense attorneys are able to select a jury that has 11 Black people, one White person.
Mr. Speaker, this happens quite often in our country. As a matter of fact, it can happen regularly in our country to Black people. Black people don't have the luxury of being tried by juries with 11 Black people on them. They are likely to be fewer than three. Black people don't have the luxury of being in a courtroom where the judge is Black, the prosecutor is Black, the court reporter is Black, and the witnesses are Black. We have a moral imperative to address this level of systemic discrimination. We should do more than simply talk about it, however. Addressing it with words is important, but we have to do more than this. We must do more than desire to manage systemic racism. We want to end it. If we don't end systemic racism, too many persons of color will continue to suffer, as is the case in this country today.
We, in this Congress, can do something about this. We have a duty to do something about it, and that something has to entail dealing with what is called a peremptory challenge, which allows a lawyer to simply draw a line through the name of a person and have that person removed from the jury, assigning some specious reason for doing so, and end up with a Black person being tried by a jury that is almost White--11 Whites and one Black.
The peremptory challenge is not something that is embedded in the Constitution. It is not something that is required. Persons can be removed from a jury for cause, but this cause, this peremptory challenge, is the cause that we should take a look at because it is absolute and it allows systemic racism to rear its ugly head in our courtrooms.
I hope to present legislation addressing systemic racism by way of the peremptory challenge.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 200
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up