So much for justice being blind . . .

I'm extremely angry to read this report in the American Bar Association Journal.

A judge's race or gender makes for a dramatic difference in the outcome of cases they hear—at least for cases in which race and gender allegedly play a role in the conduct of the parties, according to two recent studies.

The results were the focus of a program about “Diversity on the Bench: Is the ‘Wise Latina’ a Myth?,” sponsored by the ABA Judicial Division at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Orlando on Saturday afternoon.

In federal racial harassment cases, one study (PDF) found that plaintiffs lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American.

The comprehensive study, by professors from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business, examined a random assortment of 40 percent of all reported racial harassment cases from six federal circuits between 1981 and 2003.

A second study (PDF), looked at 556 federal appellate cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The finding: plaintiffs were at least twice as likely to win if a female judge was on the appellate panel.

University of Pittsburgh School of Law Professor Pat K. Chew, who co-authored the racial harassment study, said she found “the rule of law is intact” in the cases she reviewed. Judges—no matter which side they ruled for—took the same procedural steps to reach their decisions, she said.

But judges of different races took different approaches “on how to interpret the facts of the cases,” she said.

Pressed on whether the rule of law could actually be considered intact when outcomes varied so much depending on the race of the judge, she replied: "It’s always made a difference who the judge was. We’ve long known, for instance, that a judge’s political affiliation makes a difference."

There's more at the link.

This is intolerable! If justice is to be even-handedly dispensed, knowing no favoritism, incorporating no prejudice, being the same for rich and poor, young and old, male and female, etc., then there is no room whatsoever for this sort of nonsense! If, as Prof. Chew claims, "we've long known ... that a judge's political affiliation makes a difference", then why haven't those judges who display political partiality in their rulings been removed from the bench? If there are judges who allow issues such as race, gender or religion to influence their findings, they should become ex-judges as quickly as it can be arranged.

The fact that the ABA can publish such a survey without simultaneously calling for the immediate ouster of any and all such judges is a sad commentary on the state of the US legal system. The lack of outrage in the mainstream media (who appear to have largely ignored the story) is even worse!

Grrr . . .





Peter