Racism is one of the main social problems in the United States and across the globe. In the United States, this menace is historical and manifests in various ways, from the community to learning institutions, from private organizations and businesses to governmental institutions such as the criminal justice system. There have been perceptions and evidence of racism in the justice system where people from minority groups lack equal representations as those from the majority dominate the field ( Kotch & Mosteller, 2009) . Similarly, there have been cases of lack of equal treatment before the law's eyes based on an individual's racial composition. The ever-increasing excessive use of force among the African American population dictates the presence of racial discrimination in America's criminal justice system. As such, this paper provides an argument for the NC judge who issued a historic ruling about Marcus Reymond Robinson. It also agrees with the judgment that racial bias played a role in the trial and sentencing of death row inmate Robinson.
NC Racial Justice Act (RJA) and Robinson's Sentence
Since its enactment in 2012, the Racial Justice Act of NC has remained one of the most controversial and unique State acts in modern-day America. The act dictated that "upon satisfaction and evidence that race played a significant role in any of the criminal justice procedures of NC and led to the conviction of a capital defendant, he or she will have the sentence reduced from death sentence to life to prison without parole" ( Kotch & Mosteller, 2009) . This act's scope entails investigating and handling death cases from the county, the judicial division, prosecutorial district, and the State.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, under this act, the defendants are allowed to present, falling into the following categories. First, the evidence shows defendants of one race experience death sentences regularly compared to other races. Secondly, evidence depicting that death sentences are issued more on "behalf of victims of one race than others" ( Kotch & Mosteller, 2009) . Lastly, evidence demonstrating that race played a massive role during jury selection or exercise leading to the same. The tabling of evidence on any of the three categories was sufficient to conclude that RJA was violated, and therefore, a capital defendant sentence was racially influenced.
This act's primary purpose was to give capital defendants a chance to a fair trial, free from racial considerations or factors. Robinson was one of the first death row inmates to be subjected to the newly founded RJA. Robinson had been convicted to death sentence after killing a 17-year-old teenager in 1991 ( Powers, 2013) . Robinson, the capital defendant, was from the African American population, a black man, while the victim was from the white race. During Robinson's first trial against the State, the jury was composed of minimal people of color; three people of color against nine persons from the white race ( Powers, 2013) . Under the Racial Justice Act, Robinson had a second chance of proving that his death sentence was 'unfair' and racial motivated. He presented numerous statistics through his attorney, especially from a Michigan State University study that suited most of the act's provisions. A senior judge of NC ruled that there was significant evidence indicating that race played a massive role in Robinson's death sentence.
Counter-Argument
Despite the support for the RJA and the judge's decision to find race a significant factor in Robinson's death sentence, there are few counter-arguments against the judge's decision. First, according to the prosecutors in the case, the jury was legitimate and well-comprised, and therefore, there was no racial bias in its selection. Similarly, the prosecutors argued that terming the Michigan State University's study as reliable and factual was improper as it was not comprehensive.
Jury selection
Having a jury is essential in cases of violence and death. They help get an impartial ruling on whether they feel the evidence presented and the witness statements are enough to sentence or acquit a defendant. However, the fact that the prosecutors are tasked with selecting the jury becomes a conflict since they would like to see their cases go forward in most cases. In many cases, the prosecutors have been seen to select jurors that seem to be on their side, which can prove detrimental to the defense ( O'Brien & Grosso, 2012) . Having an impartial jury helps in having a fair judgment upon the completion of the hearing. In cases where a jury is racially biased, the defendant will suffer from being judged not based on their arguments and defense but based on their race.
A study by Michigan state university college of law was used to prove that the jury selection in North Carolina v Robinson was flowed. The evidence provided showed that prosecutors are in the habit of selecting jurors in a racially biased manner. The prosecutors removed qualified black jurors by the use of peremptory strikes. The move was more than twice the rate at which white jurors were removed ( Powers, 2013) . A good percentage of the current inmates in death row admit that they were sentenced by juries that consisted of all-white jurors, and others had only one person of color as part of the jury.
The fact that a jury can be constituted by jurors from one race when hearing the case of a defendant from another race shows that the jury's chances are not being impartial ( Alexander, 2013) . A jury should be neutral in discharging their duties. The impartiality of the jury helps in elevating the confidence of the people in the adjudication.
Influence in ruling
A study on capital charging and sentencing show that many black people are likely to get the death penalty for killing whites than the sentencing for killing their fellow blacks. Such findings show the lack of equality in the criminal justice systems and that other lives are considered more precious. It is wrong for prosecutors and judges to let race play a role in the criminal justice system. Race should not affect the decisions of the prosecutors or the rulings of the court made by judges. The case should be focused on the facts and the victim and not the race of the accused. This will ensure that rulings are not challenged based on claims of racial bias.
There are challenges faced while discharging duties as prosecutors and judges. The small loopholes in the system can easily make a convicted criminal go free. Therefore, the prosecutors must ensure that whenever they are handling cases that might bring out arguments based on race, they do not leave any space for such arguments. In North Carolina v Robinson, it would have been easier if the jury had been properly constituted. The defendant would have had no chance of challenging the ruling. The prosecution needs to ensure that they have an airtight case that will convince any juror regardless of their race ( Powers, 2013) . Judges should be aware that they are not obligated to reduce a convicted criminal's sentence just because they played the race card. They should find out the impacts of their decisions on the victim's family.
Conclusion
The racial justice act was meant to help avoid racial profiling in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the courts' cases on a racial basis should be thoroughly investigated before judgment is made. If a person kills, it does not matter their race; equal justice should be applied to all.
References
Alexander, R. (2013). A Model State Racial Justice Act: Fighting Racial Bias Without Killing the Death Penalty. Geo. Mason UCRLJ , 24 , 113.
Kotch, S., & Mosteller, R. P. (2009). The Racial Justice Act and the long struggle with race and the death penalty in North Carolina. NCL Rev. , 88 , 2031.
Powers, J. M. (2013). State v. Robinson and the Racial Justice Act: Statistical Evidence of Racial Discrimination in Capital Proceedings. Harv. J. Racial & Ethnic Just. , 29 , 117.
O'Brien, B., & Grosso, C. M. (2012). Beyond Batson's scrutiny: A preliminary look at racial disparities in prosecutorial preemptory strikes following the passage of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act. UCDL Rev. , 46 , 1623.
