The United States, in many ways, has a criminal justice system enviable to foreign nations. Operating on the presumption of innocence, and accepting of the inherently true fact that when it is presumed that all are innocent, some guilty will potentially fall through the cracks, the “American way” has been a determination to minimize wrongful convictions and protect the rights afforded citizens in the constitution. Unfortunately, this resolve, noble as it may be, has historically been warped over many of the periods of unrest in the country. In some regards, there is rightly a distrust of the system as minority groups have been the most recent to gain “equality” and have been the first historically to lose certain liberties when they come under attack (ex: Korematsu v USA). The discussion of the role of the court system in respect to racial profiling was, I believe, the most interesting part of the chapter, and is all too relevant in this time of uncertainty in the judiciary.

The Warren Court of the 1960s was the driving force behind innovation in the criminal justice system geared towards equality. Intent on protecting the “rights of the accused,” the Supreme Court of this era erred on the side of caution, ruling that those accused of crimes should be afforded protections not before mandated by the federal government. This decision surely impacted all of those who were accused, but none more than those who did not have adequate schooling or knowledge of their rights in interacting with police.  Though the system did not become perfect, and probably never will, the innovation during this period benefitted marginalized groups en masse. However, the Supreme Court’s reach is only so far– in the day to day operations of police forces, the rulings of individuals holed up in their “ivory towers” cannot be assuredly implemented. For example, there was mention in the chapter of the Arizona case wherein Latinos were being profiled and stopped by police because of a mayor tough on illegal immigration. Though the case was settled against the official who ordered profile based policing, the mere fact that an official policy such as that can be conducted for any period of time is indicative of systemic problems within the criminal justice system, and perhaps suggests the existence of similar policies yet to be challenged in other regions of the United States.

The judiciary today is in flux. With the Supreme Court at diminished power and the disjunction between federal, state, local courts, and the Executive branch, I am concerned about the next steps moving forward as related to anti-profiling and police-reform advocacy groups. As I cannot see the system changing independently of governmental action or formidable opposition, I will continue to put faith in bulwark groups, such as the ACLU, to break down the barriers of racial profiling in policing, and prevent the construction of a greater barrier to justice for minority groups thus.