The Zimmerman Jury Told Young Black Men

Victimhood is socially constructed by a dominant culture wherein racism precedes in state procedures, and the liberal principles fail to acknowledge it. Cord Jefferson highlights in “The Zimmerman Jury Told Young Black Men What We Already Knew” the discrimination against people of color specifically the injustice that occurs towards black men in America by public and state officials. Being apologetic for public fear, afraid of getting into a fight and tolerating the indignity of strangers are a few of the racist actions that black men have tolerated for years to avoid being arbitrarily beaten, arrested, or worse being shot to death. The courts and state agencies have been established on the liberal principles and due process rules. As a result,

it considers every individual equal under the law and guarantees freedom from discrimination. In reality, not everyone is free from discrimination. From police officers to jury members, racial discrimination is present in at every stage in the Criminal justice system. Thus, the alternative definition of victimhood presented by Stephen Carter best explains the arguments within Jefferson’s article. The racial preconceptions that surround detention, arrest, and conviction of black individuals in legal and political culture make them vulnerable to losing their liberty than individuals of any other race.
According to the liberal principles, the purpose of criminal law is to maximize the self-interest and the liberty of the citizen.

In a liberal democracy, victimhood is constructed by the dominant culture in society. Bilateral individualism describes victimhood in accordance with liberal principles. A victim, then, is someone who loses physical safety, property, or various other entities because of the actions of another individual (Carter 421). So the role of the state, in accordance with the due process rules, is to punish and deter the transgressor who has caused harm and suffering to his or her victim. However, in this perspective, the courts ignore the unequal opportunities faced by people with color. Stephen Carter’s alternative definition of victimhood incorporates the implications of race in state procedures and decisions. An implication of racism being a greater sentence of a black convict in comparison to a white convict for offenses of the same nature. So under this perspective, a victim is a member of a group that is discriminated against due to a racially oppressive past and a racially charged present (Carter 426). As Carter suggests, the role of the state, then, should be to alleviate the suffering of the victim of racism. Thus, Carter’s alternative definition of victimhood provides a better understanding of the racial prejudice present within society and state

agencies.
Carter’s alternative definition corroborates Jefferson’s article as both authors note the extensive amount of prejudice against black individuals in society.

Jefferson highlights the racial discrimination against young, black males are significantly more than any other race making them the most marginalized group in America. Consciously or unconsciously there is public fear of this particular group. This, specifically, occurs due to the history of racial oppression against black males from the white males. A direct consequence of these state actions is felt by black people in everyday life whether it be walking home from work, or going to a basketball game. The bilateral individualist perspective considers that only individuals who have suffered directly by a transgressor are victims (Carter 422). Also, victims and criminals regardless of their color have equal rights to demand justice, and justice should be the same for all. However, Carter suggests that victims are also individuals who have been marginalized due to society’s history and structure. Black individuals have become the permanent underclass within society and therefore have been deprived of the minimal access to equal education and healthcare (Carter 426). Thus, the alternative definition better supports Jefferson’s argument regarding the discrimination against black individuals in comparison to bilateral

individualism.
Jefferson asserts that black people are victims of police brutality significantly more than people of any other race. Black people have been socialized to tolerate the indignity of strangers, to remain quiet when people abuse their family members, and to be aware that there is public fear about them. If black people are unaware of any of these factors that Jefferson has mentioned then they are likely to be abused, arrested or worse shot regardless of the severity of the offense or even if there was no offense. Although bilateral individualism guarantees freedom from discrimination, black individuals are more likely to be abused by police officers than white people due to racism. Police officers depending on the individual's race will use more or less force than necessary in detaining and/or arresting the individual.
In addition, there is a tendency by the public to frame black individuals as transgressors rather than victims. This nullifies the notion of bilateral individualism which suggests that victims come in all colors and have equal rights to demand justice (Carter 423). So Carter emphasizes that the focus should be on the groups in society rather than the individuals to understand the complexity of victimhood. There is public fear of being victimized by this group specifically by white people. This is due to the increased marginalization and poor economic conditions the group has faced for numerous years. From birth, black people are victims of inequality within society. Carter would suggest that Trayvon Martin would not have been arbitrarily beaten and shot had Martin been a white male rather than black. It was a rational decision for Martin, or any other male in his position, to act defensive as he was afraid of being followed at night especially by a man with a gun. Also, Zimmerman would not have been acquitted easily if he was a black man holding a gun while Martin was a white man on the floor drenched in blood. Racism explains why certain transgressors in cases of similar context are given a longer and severe sentence, usually black people, and others, usually white transgressors, are not treated as severely. The preconception about this particular race does not allow all individuals to have an equal demand for justice.
Suppose Jefferson was a white male and not brown, then the police officer would not have asked Jefferson’s girlfriend if she was ok. They would have been notified that they were trespassing and simply told to leave. Carter presumes the actions of the police officer to be unconscious racialism. There is a discrepancy in the justice system as jurors and police officers are more often than not influenced by the color of the transgressor and certainly the color of the victim (Carter 442). The notion of unconscious racialism will definitely lead to a miscarriage of justice as facts could be ignored or overlooked by jurors due to race. Carter would agree with Jefferson’s argument that the police and the court system will view black men as the transgressors and not victims. This is primarily because of the preconception that black people are inherently more aggressive. Bilateral individualism considers people are held responsible for their own actions. However, as noted by Carter’s alternative definition, the perspective ignores the inequalities and oppression felt by black people which have led to the individual acts of transgressions. Thus, the unconscious racialism present in the legal system infringes on the rights of individuals as it fails to see the inequalities hidden by the liberal principles.