Prosecutors are supposed to hold people accountable when they hurt other people—that’s part of the job. Yet for years prosecutors across the country have opted out of that responsibility when the perpetrator is a police officer.

 Last year, police killed African Americans at a rate more than twice that of white people, according to the Guardian’s database, and African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34 at a rate five times that of white men in that age range. Our morgues were busy due to killings by police in 2015 -- 1,145 deaths among all races, according to the database.But our district attorneys’ offices were not nearly as busy: in 2015, they initiated just 18 prosecutions of police officers who killed civilians.

If local prosecutors won’t act, the federal government should find out why.

Chicago prosecutor Anita Alvarez waited almost a year before indicting the officer who killed Laquan McDonald, a young African-American man. She faced relentless pressure from organizers and communities in Chicago and brought charges only after a judge ordered the city to release the videotape of the killing that directly contradicted the officers’ versions of the shooting.

And the Chicago officer who killed Reika Boyd was acquitted after a botched prosecution by one of Alvarez’s attorneys who kept his job.

In Cleveland, Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African-American youth, was shot and killed within two seconds of officers arriving on the scene. Prosecutor Tim McGinty oversaw a grand jury “investigation” that involved leaked “expert” reports justifying the shooting, presentation of evidence that Tamir kept a toy gun longer than he should have, and accusations that Tamir’s family protested the killing of their son because of money.

In the Bronx, New York City paid $3.9 million to the family of Ramarley Graham who was shot and killed by police while in his own home, but criminal charges against the officer were dismissed, and the officer is still on the job — with a raise.

The behavior of these prosecutors led many to believe that race bias played a role in their actions. Alvarez and McGinty were voted out of office, reflecting the community reaction against two elected prosecutors; but this does not resolve issues of potential race bias by prosecutors remaining in those offices or in offices of other local prosecutors around the country.

Judges, prosecutors, and former presidential advisors have acknowledged that race bias, deliberate or unintentional, has played a role in the incarceration of African Americans in unfairly disproportionate numbers. We know prosecutors can be drivers of racialized mass incarceration because they hold so much power in our current system of plea bargain justice.

The reality that African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white people is at least in part a result of the discretionary decisions of prosecutors.

Under the circumstances, shouldn’t we ask if any kind of race bias led local prosecutors to defend police who kill instead of objectively investigating them? Given the other evidence of race bias in the system, doesn’t the miniscule number of prosecutions in killings that disproportionately affect the African-American community suggests a disturbing answer?

Until now, prosecutors have been exempt from virtually any scrutiny. It is time for that exemption to expire, and the Department of Justice has the authority and responsibility to act. The Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 authorize the attorney general to conduct investigations and file civil litigation to eliminate “a pattern or practice of discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, in connection with any law enforcement agency that receives financial assistance from DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.”

Law enforcement is defined as “all activities pertaining to crime prevention or reduction and enforcement of the criminal law.” Prosecutors, like police departments, receive millions of dollars in federal funding through Justice Assistance Grants and should be subject to the same scrutiny as the police.

Looking for the influence of race bias is not an accusation of racism. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigated the possible role of race bias in its own work without any intervention by the Justice Department. District Attorney Cyrus Vance was not accusing his staff of racism. He was willing to look for any impact race bias might have on carrying out justice. The Vera Institute examined the office’s work, from charging decisions to plea offers, and discovered evidence of racial bias that could not be explained by other factors.

Does this show that Manhattan DAs are racist? No, it points to an equally serious problem — racial bias exists systemically in ways prosecutors have not or will not recognize.

The impact of unconscious bias can be reduced and even eliminated by training to recognize it and using best practices to eliminate its influence. But if you don’t look for it, you won’t find it. And we need to remember that for those injured, killed, or incarcerated—and for their families, who are forced to bear the financial and emotional costs of incarceration—the difference between conscious and unconscious bias means nothing.

The killing of Michael Brown brought no indictment, but investigating the Ferguson police revealed some of the ugliest racist attitudes in America, leading to a Department of Justice lawsuit against the department.

How did it get that bad in Ferguson? For one thing, police knew the DAs wouldn’t hold them accountable for their behavior. We need prosecutors to do their jobs when police officers are the defendants. If they are reluctant to do it, a visit from the feds may help change their thinking.

The Department of Justice must step in and use its authority and power to ensure justice.

By Marbre Stahly-Butts and Jeffery Robinson

Source