Jews Are Rewarding Black Criminality

“Seeking justice for these serious offenses was complicated by violations to the Racial Justice Act.”
D.A. Diana Becton

 “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” Thus spoke Brandi Griffin, the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins, 22, who was shot dead on March 9, 2021, in what police allege was a gang-related drive-by shooting in Contra Costa, California. Hawkins was Black, as were the four defendants charged with his murder — Keyshawn McGee, Trent Allen, Eric Windom and Terryonn Pugh. The shooting, during which over 40 shots were fired from one vehicle into another, was allegedly part of a long-running feud between two East Bay gangs, and the arrests of the men were heralded by East Bay law enforcement as a meaningful step toward reducing gun and gang violence in the area. The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. Evidence was overwhelming and everything about the case seemed straightforward. That is, until California’s new Racial Justice Act and accusations of institutional racism became the centerpiece of the entire investigation, prompting the outburst that opens this essay.

The Racial Justice Act 2020

On February 5, Judge David Goldstein, a former public defender and past chair of the Diversity/Bench-Bar Outreach committee, removed all gang enhancements that could have resulted in life without parole sentences for the four men charged with the murder on the basis that the case was tainted by racism.  It was the second time Goldstein ruled that anti-Black bias had shaped elements of the case, and by the time it was concluded, he’d also removed special circumstance allegations and firearm enhancements. Facing radically reduced sentences and charges, all four defendants quickly made no contest to the charges and the case was brought to a sudden end. Goldstein’s actions, which follow the introduction of California’s Racial Justice Act, essentially set a precedent for a two-tiered justice system in which non-Whites can have aggravating factors in their criminal behavior, often the defining factor of the crime itself (e.g. gang motivation), ignored in court. The very concept of justice is therefore made subservient to a new need to protect non-White criminals and, in the longer term, to ensure they spend less time behind bars.

The idea for a Racial Justice Act was first introduced in 2019 by California state assembly member Marc Levine, former Chairman of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and current Regional Director of ADL Central Pacific. In 2015, Levine already exhibited his Jewish activist credentials when he contributed to a legislative package titled “Immigrants Shape California.” He drafted legislation providing $3 million in legal aid for undocumented immigrants, and publicly announced “immigrants are welcome and we will do everything we can to help them achieve legal status.” In 2019, with “AB 1798, the California Racial Justice Act,” Levine proposed that death penalty sentences on non-White criminals be postponed until it was determined “if race resulted in a sentence of capital punishment.” Levine’s bill failed, but he re-emerged as co-author of a more expansive proposal a year later, along with Jewish assembly members Scott Weiner and Laura Friedman, and several non-White assembly members.

Marc Levine

The new bill, which was later signed into law as the Racial Justice Act 2020, marked a radical departure from legal precedent set by McClesky vs Kemp (1986), in which it was established that in order to challenge a charge or conviction, a defendant must “prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose” and cannot for example rely solely on statistical studies that he alleges show “institutional racism” or discrimination more broadly. In 1978, Warren McCleskey, a Black man, was convicted of armed robbery and murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Following the jury’s recommendation, the court sentenced McCleskey to death. His appeal eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. His primary claim was that “the Georgia capital sentencing process is administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” To support his claim, McCleskey offered a statistical study that showed racial disparities in death penalty sentencing in Georgia (but without any qualitative evidence that may have shown the presence of more aggravating factors in the murders committed by Blacks).

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and rejected his claim, holding that a criminal defendant alleging an equal protection violation must not only prove there was purposeful discrimination, but that the purposeful discrimination had a discriminatory effect on him. The Court found that McCleskey offered “no evidence specific to his own case that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence.” This decision effectively denied a defendant’s ability to use statistical evidence of racial disparities related to but not directly involving their case to establish an equal protection violation. The decision in McClesky vs Kemp, for example, meant that although statistical evidence could show Blacks to be incarcerated for gang violence at a higher rate than Whites, this was irrelevant to whether the individual in a given case was a gang member and certainly not grounds for a more lenient sentence.

One of the most prominent legal critics of McClesky vs Kemp is Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and founding member of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. Chemerinsky, who provided much of the intellectual basis for the revision of McClesky, has accused the Supreme Court of a “dismal record on issues of race throughout American history. The Court enforced the institution of slavery, upheld “separate but equal,” and consistently failed to deal with systemic racism and racial inequalities.” Chemerinsky alleged that McClesky set an almost impossible evidential standard for a defendant to prove racism was involved in his prosecution, and called for a much wider basis for challenging a case in which racism “may” have played a part.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Borrowing from the initial activism of Marc Levine, and incorporating the critique devised by Erwin Chemerinsky, the Racial Justice Act 2020, allowed racial data, and related concepts of “institutional racism” and unconscious bias, to be brought into the criminal justice arena. As one commentary describes it, the RJA “dramatically expand the ways a defendant can show discrimination. Under the RJA, defendants in California no longer need to prove intentional discrimination in their case to bring a claim of racial bias, as McCleskey required. Instead, defendants can now establish racial bias by relying on statistical data showing racial disparities in the charging, conviction, or sentencing process of other defendants who share their race.”

It allows judges to discount any evidence if it appears to be based on racial bias. In Contra Costa, David Goldstein said there was a “significant statistical disparity,” which shows “gang charges are more often filed against Black people.” He said he used data from prosecutors and defense attorneys “largely agreed upon that showed that Black people were from six to eight percent more likely to be charged with ‘special circumstance gang enhancements’ than people who weren’t Black. Those enhancements, alleging gang membership and added on top of the underlying criminal charges at issue in a case, can greatly increase the sentence a defendant receives.” As well as removing these enhancements in this particular case, Goldstein said his decision clears the way for “any Black person who has faced or is facing those charges in Contra Costa over the past decade to challenge them in court.” In other words, every convicted Black gang criminal in the area can now apply to have his sentence radically reduced. In fact, $2 million has been granted by the legislature to fund precisely that course of action for any non-White criminal who wishes to allege that he was the victim of a racist legal system.

Judge David Goldstein 

Goldstein’s actions, and the case in general, are now seen as a primer for what will soon unfold across the entire criminal justice system in California. Several other cases involving the RJA are already pending. For example, in 2022, a San Diego police officer stopped Tommy Bonds III, a Black man, and cited him for misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon. In San Diego Superior Court, Bonds invoked the RJA, believing he was pulled over because of his race. However, the judge ruled that the officer did not show bias in his interaction with Bonds. Bonds appealed, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court judge “fail(ed) to address the abundant evidence suggesting that the traffic stop may have been the product of unintended racial bias.” Although the officer had previously testified that he did not see the driver’s race before deciding to stop him, he did say that “the person was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up.” The appeals court said “it was not necessary that [the officer] had verified the occupants were Black before he stopped their vehicle, because he may well have subconsciously assumed they were based on their clothing, their presence in the neighborhood, or other subtle factors.” This extremely broad level of evidential consideration is precisely in line with that advocated by Chemerinsky as a ‘corrective’ to McClesky vs Kemp.

One of the major sponsors and lobbyists for the Act was the League of Women Voters of California, the prominent member in relation to the RJA being its Jewish Deputy Director, Dora Rose. Rose greeted the passing of the RJA by saying

The bottom line is that we can’t keep having trials with all white juries. We can’t continue to allow racially coded language that triggers bias in the courtroom. And we must stop the systemically disproportionate arrest and sentencing that is tearing up our Black communities. The Racial Justice Act will help us accomplish those ends.

Dora Rose 

Unequal Justice for Victims and Discrimination Against Whites

Ironically, while the Racial Justice Act is being touted as a major leap forward for the Black population, it is likely to compound its misery. This is more than abundant in the blunt but apt protest from the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins: “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” What we are really seeing play out here is not a crusade on behalf of innocent Blacks, but a crusade by Jews and a motley of non-White politico-intellectuals in the service of diminishing White safety and achieving the further demoralization and decay of stable White societies. Ultimately, Blacks are unconcerned with contrived and, to them, often complex theories of institutional racism unless it appears to immediately benefit them in form of a lesser prison sentence or the granting of immediate material benefits. Like any mother, Brandi Griffin wants the four men who killed her son to go to prison for the longest possible term, even if I am certain that if she were the mother of one of the defendants she would most definitely “give a shit about the racist shit.” Blacks will be individualist opportunists in such scenarios, while the intellectual and political heavy lifting is done “on their behalf” by Jews who pose as their saviours.

Those looking at the statistical data with honesty reach the similar conclusions. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has argued that the RJA “will produce unequal justice for victims as well as offenders.” MacDonald points out that racial disparities in incarceration reflect disparities in who is more likely to commit criminal offenses. Citing police department data, MacDonald said, “In Los Angeles, Blacks are 21 times as likely as Whites to commit a violent crime, 36 times as likely to commit a robbery, and 57 times as likely to commit a homicide.” She further argued that the RJA will have a disproportionate impact on Black victims, stating that the victims and witnesses who contribute to police department data are “themselves disproportionately Black . . . [and] are 17 times as likely to be homicide victims as Whites.” One of the primary impacts of the RJA will therefore be that a lot of Black victims will not see the justice they expect to be served. Dora Rose claims she is preventing the “tearing up of our Black communities,” but that’s exactly what she is going to worsen — for Blacks and everyone around them. Blacks are being fed a fantasy by Jewish intellectuals that their liberation will be found in the reduction of incarcerations, but as one legal commentator has argued:

The Reparations Task Force in California, a state that fought on the side of the Union in the Civil War and in which no person lives today who was either slave or master when the practice was still legal in parts of the U.S., has also recommended that the state shutter 10 prisons in five years, repurposing the facilities to benefit African Americans. But it’s clear that California’s prisons do benefit its Black citizens – by protecting them and all the state’s residents from violent criminals. Black Americans number just under 14% of the population but suffered 53% of homicides in 2020, up 32% from the year before the advent of defund-the-police, Black Lives Matter, and widespread urban unrest – with 2,457 more murder victims compared to the year before. In a typical year, 9 in 10 people who murder a Black American are themselves Black, meaning going even easier on violent felons in California will most likely end up resulting in more dead Black Californians.

Whites will be massively disadvantaged under the new system. Chuck DeVore, the Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has argued the RJA gives preferential treatment to individuals of certain races and “extending preferential treatment to a criminal based on their race wrongly punishes individuals not benefiting from that leniency.” Black and Latino defendants, because their groups are disproportionately prosecuted and incarcerated, may be able to bring claims under the RJA that would be unavailable to White defendants. As a thought experiment, we could assume a Black and White person who together commit the same crime, and are charged exactly the same—both with more serious offenses than others who commit a similar crime. Under the RJA, the Black defendant may be able to use statistical data to argue that the prosecution more frequently sought these types of convictions against other Black defendants, while that argument might be unavailable for the White defendant if the same disparity doesn’t exist for other White defendants. In this scenario, although the Black defendant would be entitled to remedies under the RJA, the White defendant would not—even though they were both charged with the same crime. In other words, Black criminals will benefit from the fact their race commits disproportionately more crimes — Black criminality is thus rewarded, at the expense of victims of all ethnic backgrounds.

As well as being an ethical disaster, the Racial Justice Act will be a drain on taxpayers and public finance. Millions of dollars have already been allocated to reassessing historical cases for hints of racism. More serious, however, will be the future cost. An entire industry will essentially be built upon the probes and investigations that will now take place every time an RJA protest is lodged at the outset of a criminal case. Everything from text messages sent between police officers, to passing comments by prosecutors, will be assessed and reassessed to see if they in any way constitute something that could vaguely be construed as racial. As seen above, every mention of a hooded sweatshirt or other “subtle factors” will now be brought into play to ensure that even the most appalling and obvious murderers are not seen through a racial lens. Lisa Romo, an attorney at the Office of the State Public Defender, complained, “There’s not enough money; we have defenders who are overwhelmed and not enough staff to process all the requests coming in. We desperately need more resources. The legislature just appropriated $2 million just for retroactive RJA claims, which is appreciated, but that’s just a drop in the bucket.”

Conclusion

Chuck DeVore points out at the conclusion of his remarks on the RJA that “when logic and reason die, people soon after get robbed, raped and murdered.” These are certain outcomes, along with the death of justice and the bankrupting of the public purse at the behest of stunning and brave “racial allies” like Levine, Friedman, Weiner, Goldstein, Chemerinsky, Rose and so many others working behind the scenes on initiatives like the RJA in California and beyond.