Commentary
One of the worst bills introduced this year is Assembly Bill 852. It’s by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), the chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. In the bill’s language, it “would require courts, whenever they have discretion to determine a sentence, to consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.” That is, translating from the jargon, judges would have to consider race in criminal sentencing.
Here’s the obvious problem: Criminal justice exists to keep us safe. Sentencing has to be just. But as California has found out the hard way in recent years, light sentences only encourage more crime. Here’s just one story, from Newsweek on Aug. 2, “Oakland is experiencing so much violent crime that organizations as diverse as the city police officers’ association and the local branch of the NAACP are calling for law enforcement to get more support.
“In the year to July 30, crime increased by 26 percent in the California city, according to Oakland Police Department (OPD) statistics. The figures are particularly stark for vehicle theft and knifepoint robbery.”
The 2020 U.S. Census found Oakland was 35.5 percent white, 23.8 percent black, 15.5 percent Asian, 6.9 percent mixed race, and 27 percent Latino. The numbers add up to more than 100 percent because Latinos can be of any race. That means the victims of crime there are largely non-white. Reduced sentences based on race only will make it harder for those people to live there.
AB 852 also reads, “It is the intent of the Legislature to rectify the racial bias that has historically permeated our criminal justice system as documented by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans.” I covered the task force and its unrealistic conclusions in several articles in the Epoch Times. The bill would do the opposite of its intent. Instead of “rectifying” matters, it would increase crime in black communities.
The bill would also face problems in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court in June disallowed affirmative action in cases involving admissions to Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Politico reported, “The first, and the most likely, ‘next shoe to drop’ after this week’s ruling is a decision invalidating what are called ‘disparate impact’ rules. The idea behind disparate impact is simple: Often, people who act for bad reasons don’t wear their racist motives on their sleeves or are simply negligent about the way their actions entrench past, race-based disadvantage. So disparate-impact laws allow a plaintiff to prove they encountered discrimination by pointing to large and unexplained racial disparities.
“But conservative justices have had disparate impact in their sights for more than a decade now: This week’s more categorical ruling against race-based college admissions adds a powerful new weapon to their repertoire. For it is impossible to talk of ‘racially disparate impact’ without talking of ... race.”
The problem with “disparate impact” is it’s impossible to determine whether discrimination occurred if the only evidence that exists are “unexplained racial disparities.” Therefore companies effectively impose quota systems on themselves just to try to avoid being taken to court. That is, they purposely discriminate against some races in favor of others—just as Harvard and the University of North Carolina did when they biased admissions against Asians until the court ruled against them.
People walk on the campus of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on June 29, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-based admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution. Eros Hoagland/Getty Images
Then there’s the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was intended precisely to make the newly freed black slaves equal citizens. It reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Harvard and UNC case explicitly decided, “Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
And the California Constitution also guarantees in Article I, Section 7, “(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.”
AB 852 already passed in the Assembly, 58-13. It’s currently in the Senate Committee on Public Safety, and likely will pass there and in the full Senate, followed by a signature from Gov. Gavin Newsom.
California is a highly diverse state, and becoming more so. Introducing racial profiling into criminal sentencing would make a troubled system even more chaotic. As we saw last year in San Francisco, where voters recalled a race-obsessed district attorney, Chesa Boudin, even ultra-liberal Californians want safe streets. AB 852 would make them less safe.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
