Juries, Racism and Politics

Juries, Racism and Politics:

Pitting one against the other — appealing to our fears

Friday, April 11th 1997 — My close friend Elliott Curson, a nationally known media guru, shrugged when I phoned him the other day. "Your buddy Jack McMahon just lost the Philadelphia District Attorney's race," I chided. He chuckled and said, "Let's wait and see."

McMahon, an unknown candidate running against incumbent Philadelphia D.A. Lynn Abraham, used to be an assistant District Attorney in the "City of Brotherly Love." During his tenure, he made a video tape which was widely shown to fledgling prosecutors. Among other imprudent advice on the tape, McMahon counsels young prosecutors about jury selection saying that "young black women are very bad" to put on juries. He goes on to advise, "The blacks from the low income areas are less likely to convict. There's a resentment for authority. And as a result, you don't want those people on your jury."

McMahon also admits lying to the court, feigning illness to get rid of a jury he wasn't happy with.

It turns out that this tape was released by Ms. Abraham to embarrass McMahon and cripple his chances to defeat her. In different times, it may have. But today, his free-wheeling remarks, which belittle minority's ability to sit as triers of fact, have instead cemented the white working-class into McMahon supporters and backfired on Abraham.

"Yeah," they collectively nod, "It's those blacks who let criminals walk. They aren't fit to judge a case." So , McMahon, whose taped remarks might result in the re-trial and subsequent release of hundreds, if not thousands of convicted felons, has become the darling of the Philadelphia working class and put the popular Abraham, featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine for advocating the death penalty, on the defensive.

Shades of the O.J. Simpson jury? Yes and no.

Since the early 1980s America has been quietly dividing into two camps. The haves and the have-nots. Young affluent and working-class white Americans, hang on to the promise of the American Dream, and relate to the promises of their fathers and grandfathers, clinging to the quickly disappearing freedom to ascend the corporate ladder, marry, have three kids, buy a Volvo and settle in toward retirement.

Young blacks and other minorities also rely on myth. But more and more, they too are disillusioned by the programs of the 60s which promised so much, and the backlash of the 90s which delivers less and less -- and diminish Great Society agendas as "hand outs" and government giveaways that enmesh African-Americans, Hispanics and others in "dependent" rather than "self-reliant" lives.

What results is confusion, bitterness, and a loss of far-sightedness as the demands of meagerness, on both sides, force people to choose-up sides and accuse the other of bursting their bubble.

Jack McMahon's tape -- one that would never have circulated 20 years ago, is a symptom of this virus. McMahon had no qualms that the tape be shown to both black and white prosecutors. It made no difference that the Supreme Court ruled, in 1986, that lawyers could not strike potential jurors because of race. As a matter of fact, McMahon made his tape that same year. To McMahon, young blacks from Philadelphia were a bad bet, but blacks from South Carolina were just the opposite. He said, on the tape, "I don't think you can ever lose with blacks from South Carolina. They are dynamite. They are law and order. They are on the cop's side."

Say what?

In fairness to McMahon, Lynn Abraham also crossed the line between prudence and racist leg-upsmanship. She has been quoted saying it's hard to hire African-American prosecutors because they "don't like to put more of their brothers behind bars," thus invoking the "Darden Dilemma."

The bottom line is that pitting race and class against each other is "en vogue" in this country. Both Democrats and Republicans, all too often, seek to pit the worst in us against the worst in others, in abusive attempts to move us to one side or other.

The truth is that people, no matter their racial, ethnic or religious heritage, are individuals and can't be counted on to fit the stereotypes often assigned them by politicians.

The Abraham-McMahon race in Philadelphia demonstrates this all too well. It's a classic contest between two people vying for the affection of the worst society has to offer -- voters who think the answer to their fears lie at the feet of the other guy.

Here, both candidates glibly define the problem as race. Mr. McMahon says blacks will let felons go free simply because they are black. Ms. Abraham says blacks can't be relied upon to prosecute criminals because criminals are often black. But both are really saying something else.

Can you guess what it is?