Case 1. A Black man is charged with writing a bad check. While the law prohibiting this behavior appears neutral, CRT examines the broader context.
John attempted to float the check to feed his family because his low-paying job—one of few available to him due to systemic educational and employment barriers linked to race—left him without options. Through this lens, John isn't simply a "criminal" who broke the law; he's an individual navigating a system where historical racism has created unequal opportunities and outcomes.
Traditional Outcome: John is prosecuted for fraud and may face jail time, a criminal record, or both.
CRT informed outcome: The court considers why John wrote the bad check. His circumstances—chronic underemployment, wage inequality, lack of access to quality education—are rooted in systemic racism.
A judge could opt for alternatives to incarceration, such as:
Restitution paired with access to social services, food assistance, or job training.
Deferred adjudication or diversion programs, allowing John to avoid a permanent criminal record if he complies with conditions.
This approach doesn’t excuse the act, but it addresses root causes and supports accountability through restoration, not punishment.
Case 2. A Black man is arrested for trespassing at a public park after hours. While the anti-loitering law appears neutral, CRT examines the broader context.
Jim was walking home through the park after working a late shift at his service job—one of two jobs he holds to afford housing in a neighborhood with unreliable public transportation, the result of historical redlining and infrastructure disinvestment in predominantly Black areas. Unlike residents in wealthier neighborhoods with private yards and reliable transit options, Jim lacks safe alternatives for his commute. Through this lens, Jim isn't simply a "criminal" breaking park curfew; he's navigating a system where historical racism has shaped city planning, housing accessibility, and policing priorities, creating unequal experiences of public space.
Traditional Outcome: Jim is ticketed or arrested for violating curfew ordinances.
CRT-informed outcome: The court acknowledges the systemic housing and transit inequities that led Jim to walk through the park after hours.
Jim might be offered:
Dismissal or reduction of charges if no harm was caused, recognizing the use of parks as a necessity, not a threat.
The municipality might even be compelled to review the enforcement pattern of the curfew law—does it disproportionately target Black residents?
The case could prompt a broader legal challenge to the ordinance as applied, arguing it is discriminatory in effect.
Case 3. A Latina single mother is arrested for leaving her two young children unattended in her car while she runs into a job interview. The law on child endangerment appears neutral, intended to protect minors from harm. CRT examines the broader context.
Maria left her children in the car for ten minutes on a mild spring day—not out of neglect, but desperation. With no family support, no paid leave, and no affordable childcare, Maria had to choose between risking a brief absence or missing a job opportunity she desperately needed. Her economic reality was shaped by interlocking systems: underfunded public schools that left her with limited credentials, a housing crisis exacerbated by discriminatory lending practices, and a job market that offers low wages and little flexibility to people of color—especially women.
Traditional Outcome: Maria is arrested and charged with child endangerment. She could lose custody of her children and face criminal penalties, deepening the very instability she's trying to escape.
CRT-informed outcome: The court considers the structural factors that shaped Maria’s decision. Rather than viewing her solely through the lens of legal violation, it recognizes how race, gender, and economic marginalization intersect in her life.
Alternative responses might include:
Referral to social services for childcare support, employment resources, and parenting programs.
A suspended sentence contingent on support program participation, not incarceration.
Policy review: Could laws criminalizing poverty-related choices be enforced more equitably? Are there patterns of disproportionate impact on women of color?
This approach doesn't condone the risk to her children—but it acknowledges the societal neglect that put Maria in this impossible position to begin with.
While people of all races can face poverty, lack of opportunity, and systemic barriers, CRT examines how racism was systemized into laws and institutions, creating unique disadvantages for people of color across generations. The point isn't to excuse behavior but to understand its full context.
No comments:
Post a Comment