The United States is the most dangerous nation among industrialized states, and increasingly more dangerous than much of the developing world. As violent crime soars, our criminal justice system has revealed itself unable and unwilling to respond.
This year it was announced that the national murder clearance rate, which tracks arrests of suspects but not necessarily convictions, has dropped below 50%, the lowest in history. This figure represents a remarkable and system-wide failure, especially when leaps in forensic science and investigative techniques are taken into account. When we contrast the US with nations suffering from a comparable race and crime problem, such as the United Kingdom, we find that only 20% of murderers escape accountability. In the rest of Western Europe, the clearance rate seldom dips below 80%, while relatively homogenous nations like Finland arrest a homicide suspect in close to 100% of cases.
It’s common knowledge that a disproportionate number of homicides in America amount to blacks killing blacks, but recent years have seen a dramatic rise in interracial homicides as well.
According to data tracked by the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), black on white homicides rose from a total of 2299 in 2019 to 2914 in 2021, a jump of more than 20%. The timing is not a coincidence, the interracial murder rate instantly spiked in 2020 following the implementation of policing and prison reforms after the George Floyd riots, as well as the media’s dedication to overtly demonizing white people.
The latest NIBRS data is not a product of natural progression. The 2020 and 2021 numbers have no modern equivalent. In 1995, the last time interracial murders exceeded the current rate, 3072 whites were killed by blacks. Though this figure only slightly surpasses the current interracial murder rate, the media covered crime far more aggressively 26 years ago, which is part of the reason why promoting law and order used to be a political consensus.
After the passage of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which both Democrats and Republicans today rail against as racist, interracial murders went into a free fall, dropping by a full third from 1994 to 1999. Eventually, relatively successful crime fighting techniques that have now been completely reversed culminated in historically low rates of interracial killings. These numbers consistently held throughout the 2000s and 2010s, reaching lows not seen since the 1960s.
What is startling about this return to the crime rates of the 1980s and early 1990s is that whites are significantly more segregated from blacks today than 35 years ago, meaning that more murders are occurring despite fewer opportunities.
The racialization and politicization of our criminal justice system, which has infected lawyers, juries, judges and beyond, is also struggling to punish non-white people accused of killing whites, regardless of the evidence and circumstances.
While no data currently exists on this topic, the anecdotes are piling up. An Akron jury’s refusal to convict two black men of manslaughter after they viciously stomped a young white man, Ethan Liming, to death over a water gun dispute has been circulating on social media to a limited extent, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.
It is known that black on black murders are more likely to end in mistrials, often due to them being gang related and urban codes of silence, but a cursory search of local news stories from the last three months reveals that somewhere around a quarter of stories nationwide regarding prosecutors struggling to convict a murder defendant have a non-white aggressor and a white victim, despite such crimes dynamics being far less common than intraracial homicides.
There does not appear to be a specific mechanism we can point to as responsible for forcing such outcomes, but a systematic pattern is apparent. There is a spectrum of absurdities: a judge will grant a mistrial based off of a ridiculous defense argument, a prosecutor will make unforced and moronic errors, or a minority or left-wing juror will engage in nullification or only allow the lowest level crime to stick, sometimes openly stating that they refuse to send a black man to jail no matter what.
This played out in a Baltimore courtroom last July in the case of a black teenager who shot and killed a white man with an illegal gun. The Baltimore jury was shown the entire incident, where video footage caught the suspect shooting the victim several times in the back. Nevertheless, the black jurors refused to come to a verdict until they were compelled when the judge issued an Allen charge. They passed on the recommended First Degree or Second Degree murder options and opted to find the attacker guilty of the minimum charge, which was Voluntary Manslaughter.
In another summer debacle, black 28-year-old Shayla Baylor was released from custody after two mistrials. In 2021, Baylor stabbed a 62-year-old white man named Greg McKnight to death during a dispute in an Oakland, California supermarket parking lot.
McKnight, who was wheelchair bound, could not exit his car after Baylor illegally parked next to him in a handicap parking space, which boxed him in his car.
Baylor’s defense hinged on McKnight having had called her “nigger” during the argument prior to the incident, which friends of McKnight said was impossible due to him being a life-long left-wing activist. Nevertheless, the Oakland jury refused to convict her twice, forcing prosecutors to plead her down and release her back into society with time served.
In another July mistrial, a 25-year-old Puerto Rican man in Massachusetts named Emanuel Lopes was able to win a mistrial after killing two whites, Weymouth police Sgt. Michael Chesna and an elderly bystander, Vera Adams. Lopes’ defense argued that he was going through a mental breakdown and was thus not liable. The entire Worcester jury voted to convict him, but one person, described only as a “young woman,” held out. Jurors told the press that she refused to look at any of the evidence and stubbornly held her ground without explanation. Rather than force a verdict through an Allen charge, judge Beverly Cannone granted a mistrial in the double homicide trial.
This type of systematic failure is by no means relegated to blue state courts. Last May, a Huntsville, Alabama judge granted a mistrial in the murder case of X’Zavier Kamontae Scott after testimony alleging abuse of his girlfriend came out in court. Often times judges overseeing a serious criminal trial will simply tell jurors to disregard such slip ups, but in this case, the judge was described as vanishing into his chambers to “think about it” before deciding to end the trial on this technicality.
In 2018, Scott and his girlfriend, Domanek Jackson, randomly approached a white woman, Tiffany Kelley, saying they were suffering from an emergency and needed a ride. The woman, a wife and mother, agreed to help them. Once inside Kelley’s vehicle, Scott and Jackson repeatedly stabbed her in the neck and stole her car.
Though Scott’s case is set to be retried next month, a separate jury in 2022 found his female accomplice innocent of murder and decided to let her go on a mere robbery charge.
Perhaps the most absurd mistrial on this list is the case of mixed race repeat felon, Juan Garibaldo in Toledo, Ohio. Garibaldo is accused of murdering his white girlfriend, Sarah Schulte, in 2022.
During court proceedings last July, testimony from one of Schulte’s friends accusing Garibaldo of killing the victim’s puppy prior to the incident was, without prosecutorial solicitation, mistakenly included in the record. Garibaldo’s attorney, whose client has previously been convicted of viciously beating other white women he was in relationships with and a myriad of other crimes, argued in a nihilistic motion for mistrial that the jury was being unfairly prejudiced against the defendant’s character because “every juror loves puppies, and no juror would fail to condemn any person who would kill a puppy.”
The Lucas County judge overseeing the case stunned both the prosecutor and the victim’s family by granting the defense’s stupid request and taking the extraordinary measure of ending the trial over a single sentence about Garibaldo possibly having hurt an animal.
Jury nullification as an instrument of racial revenge against white people is not an idea that came from the street, but an actual political strategy endorsed and promoted by mainstream black intellectuals such as Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler.
Butler, who is often featured as a guest contributor in black and liberal media, has for decades called for black people to nullify juries when deciding the fate of black defendants as a strategy for building black power.
Promoting jury nullification is in a legal gray area, and promoting the theory directly to jurors — a type of libertarian activism that has fallen out of favor — has in the past led to criminal obstruction charges. At bare minimum, there are ethical questions law schools like Georgetown should face when promoting a legal theorist who uses the national media to tell black people that they should never find black criminals guilty in order to collectively punish white people.
What is perhaps most astounding is that, while Butler has been promoting these ideas from the fringes since the 1990s, he is now considered a mainstream authority featured on cable news channels such as MSNBC to promote his theories.
The American criminal justice system is grotesque and unpredictable, an abomination. There don’t appear to be any rules or principles applied in a blind and consistent fashion, other if you are white –whether a defendant or victim — you will always have the scales of justice tipped against you.