What do you think?
Rate this book
Race, Crime, and the Law
An "admirable, courageous, and meticulously fair and honest book” ( New York Times Book Review ) in which “one of our most important and perceptive writers on race" ( The Washington Post ) takes on a highly complex issue in a way that no one has before.
"This book should be a standard for all law students."— Boston Globe
In this groundbreaking, powerfully reasoned, lucid work that is certain to provoke controversy, Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy takes on a highly complex issue in a way that no one has before. Kennedy uncovers the long-standing failure of the justice system to protect blacks from criminals, probing allegations that blacks are victimized on a widespread basis by racially discriminatory prosecutions and punishments, but he also engages the debate over the wisdom and legality of using racial criteria in jury selection. He analyzes the responses of the legal system to accusations that appeals to racial prejudice have rendered trials unfair, and examines the idea that, under certain circumstances, members of one race are statistically more likely to be involved in crime than members of another.
"This book should be a standard for all law students."— Boston Globe
In this groundbreaking, powerfully reasoned, lucid work that is certain to provoke controversy, Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy takes on a highly complex issue in a way that no one has before. Kennedy uncovers the long-standing failure of the justice system to protect blacks from criminals, probing allegations that blacks are victimized on a widespread basis by racially discriminatory prosecutions and punishments, but he also engages the debate over the wisdom and legality of using racial criteria in jury selection. He analyzes the responses of the legal system to accusations that appeals to racial prejudice have rendered trials unfair, and examines the idea that, under certain circumstances, members of one race are statistically more likely to be involved in crime than members of another.
556 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
22 people are currently reading
376 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 25, 2012
Although certain lengths of this book can be dry (especially the legal history stuff), my favorite part of this book is the section on racial profiling and Kennedy's arguments on the subject. Of course, a very sensitive subject but in my opinion Kennedy gives an evenhanded analysis. In essence, he argues that unless there is a compelling reason for police officers to profile (an eyewitness description, etc.), they should be discouraged from doing so. He writes that the risk of innocents being harassed should be balanced against the social cost (increased crime rate) of not profiling. In a nutshell he argues that this social cost should rightfully be borne by society as a whole instead of by specific segments of the population that have historically been victimized by the police and the courts. He convincingly demonstrates this history of discrimination and injustice perpetrated against African Americans by the American legal system throughout history, beginning with the Civil War and ending with contemporary events and court decisions. Fascinating reading for those interested in African American history or perhaps the history of criminal law.
May 20, 2024
A BLACK LAW PROFESSOR LOOKS CAREFULLY AT LAWS THEIR EFFECTS
Randall LeRoy Kennedy is an American law professor at Harvard University. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1997 book, “This book explores the bitterly contested crossroads where race relations intersect with the rules that govern the apprehension, trial, and punishment of criminals… This book attempts to supply that understanding by explaining and evaluating resolutions to the most important legal controversies that arise when legislative, administrative, or judicial policies or decisions are challenged on the grounds that they are racially unjust…
“I pursue a variety of aims. The first is to show the existence of neglected common ground between combatants of competing ideological camps… My second aim… is to … explain the history that causes a substantial number of Americans, particularly African-Americans, to perceive the criminal justice system with suspicion, if not antagonism. To accomplish this aim, I focus first on how authorities have declined to protect blacks from criminality and second on how authorities have racially mistreated black suspects, defendants, and convicts… An important theme of this book is that blacks have suffered more from being left unprotected or underprotected by law enforcement authorities than from being mistreated as suspects or defendants, although it is allegations of the latter that now typically receive the most attention…
“My third aim is to provide useful guidance in grappling with an age-old question in American life: When, if ever, is it defensible to engage in racial discrimination?... [meaning] using race as a criterion for treating one person or group differently from others… My fourth aim is to shed light on the difficult problem of uncovering racial discrimination when a policy makes no reference to race and its authors deny having acted with a racial motive… I examine allegations of racial discrimination in decisions to prosecute women for endangering their babies through illicit drug usage… and the administration of capital punishment.” (Pg. ix-x)
In the first chapter, he says of “the controversy over Tawana Brawley, a black teenager who alleged that she had been abducted and raped by six white men… A New York State grand jury concluded, on the basis of overwhelming evidence that Brawley’s allegations were groundless. Yet some people … continue to credit her story despite compelling evidence that she lied… Such disregard for facts and exploitation of antiracist sentiments reduce the stature of those who sink to such tactics as well as the credibility of future allegations of racial injustice.” (Pg. 7-8)
He notes, “the disproportionate prevalence of African-Americans in the population of street criminals functions to create or exacerbate racial prejudice by providing grounds for viewing blacks in general with heightened suspicion… Jesse Jackson memorably exhibited the way in which such calculations can influence even those who are fervent champions of black advancement. ‘There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved.’ The reason he felt relief was not that he prefers whites or dislikes blacks. He felt relief because he estimated that he stood a marginally greater risk of being robbed by a black person than by someone white.” (Pg. 15-16)
He states, “crime tends to be racially segregated; four-fifths of violent crimes are committed by persons of the same race as their victims. Hence, behind high rates of blacks perpetrating violent crimes are high rates of black victimization. Black teenagers are nine times more likely to be murdered than their white counterparts. [In 1990] While young black men were murdered at the rate of …140 per 100,000… for young white men the rate was 20 … per 100,000… As Gerry G. Watts acidly comments, ‘Racist white cops, however vicious, are ultimately minor irritants when compared to the viciousness of the black gangs and wanton violence.’” (Pg. 19-20)
He points out, “During the Jim Crow era, officials also used the criminal law to reimpose involuntary servitude upon blacks. When whites had no pressing need for black workers, Negroes were permitted to move about freely to wring from the labor market whatever wages they could command. When whites needed black workers, however, law enforcement officials reinforced by a panoply of byzantine statutes, limited competition for labor, deprived Negroes of freedom of movement, coerced them into labor agreements, criminalized breach of contract, and compelled black convicts to work off their ‘debt to society’ by laboring for white employers at rock-bottom prices.” (Pg. 90)
He acknowledges, “It does no good to pretend that blacks and whites are similarly situated with respect to either rates of perpetration or rates of victimization. They are not. A dramatic crime gap separates them. In relation to their percentage of the population, blacks on average both commit more crimes and are more often victimized by criminality. The familiar dismal statistics … are not figments of some Negrophobe’s imagination… the statistics confirm what more careful criminologists … conclude: … blacks, particularly young black men, commit a percentage of the nation’s street crime that is strikingly disproportionate to their percentage of the nation’s population.” (Pg. 145)
He notes, “Even in the absence of illegal racial discrimination, traditional methods of jury selection often yield a substantial ‘underrepresentation’ of blacks… [which] is attributable to a variety of factors. Voter registration lists are the most commonly used source for lists of prospective jurors… larger percentages of blacks than whites are disqualified by subjective and objective criteria… Even when they are not racially excluded by means of subjective tests… blacks tend to be disproportionately excluded by objective tests. For example, larger percentages of blacks than whites fail to finish high school, which is important since some authorities use the completion of high school as a proxy for adequate ‘intelligence’ to be a juror. Similarly, larger percentages of blacks than whites have been convicted for committing felonies, a certification of misconduct that precludes jury service in most (if not all) jurisdictions.” (Pg. 252-253)
He argues, “The claim that illicit racial beliefs and perceptions animated the enactment of the crack-powder distinction would surely be strengthened if all or even most of the black members of Congress had objected to the statue of racial grounds. The fact is, however, that eleven of the twenty-one blacks who were then members of the House of representatives voted in favor of the law which created the 100-to-1 crack-powder differential… in light of charges that the crack-powder distinction was enacted partly because of conscious or unconscious racism, it is noteworthy that NONE of the black members of Congress made that claim at the time the bill was initially discussed.” (Pg. 370-371)
He suggests, “I have not endorsed the crack-powder sentencing differential. Perhaps it should be rejected. After all, it perversely permits some large-scale traffickers in powder to be punished less severely than some small-scale traffickers in crack… There is force to the argument that policing prohibition with draconian laws in inefficient, the cause of avoidable misery, and inferior to alternative models of regulation. Maybe… the entire war on drugs is mistaken. But even if these policies are misguided, being mistaken is different from being racist, and the difference is one that greatly matters.” (Pg. 386)
He concludes, “I hope that readers will take from this book two overriding impressions. First, much remains to be done to make the administration of criminal law racially just… The legal doctrines that permit police to treat blackness as a mark of increased risk of criminality generates large pools of distrust, anger, and discord. Blacks are keenly aware that their constitutional protection against unwarranted police intrusion is of a decidedly inferior sort than the protection enjoyed by whites. This racially disparate treatment is wrong…The second impression that I want to leave with readers should serve as an antidote to these overwrought, defeatist critiques by acknowledging that the administration of criminal law has changed substantially for the better over the past half century and that there is reason to believe that, properly guided, it can be improved even more.” (Pg. 387-388)
This book will be “must reading” for those studying issues of criminality, law, and racial matters.
Randall LeRoy Kennedy is an American law professor at Harvard University. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1997 book, “This book explores the bitterly contested crossroads where race relations intersect with the rules that govern the apprehension, trial, and punishment of criminals… This book attempts to supply that understanding by explaining and evaluating resolutions to the most important legal controversies that arise when legislative, administrative, or judicial policies or decisions are challenged on the grounds that they are racially unjust…
“I pursue a variety of aims. The first is to show the existence of neglected common ground between combatants of competing ideological camps… My second aim… is to … explain the history that causes a substantial number of Americans, particularly African-Americans, to perceive the criminal justice system with suspicion, if not antagonism. To accomplish this aim, I focus first on how authorities have declined to protect blacks from criminality and second on how authorities have racially mistreated black suspects, defendants, and convicts… An important theme of this book is that blacks have suffered more from being left unprotected or underprotected by law enforcement authorities than from being mistreated as suspects or defendants, although it is allegations of the latter that now typically receive the most attention…
“My third aim is to provide useful guidance in grappling with an age-old question in American life: When, if ever, is it defensible to engage in racial discrimination?... [meaning] using race as a criterion for treating one person or group differently from others… My fourth aim is to shed light on the difficult problem of uncovering racial discrimination when a policy makes no reference to race and its authors deny having acted with a racial motive… I examine allegations of racial discrimination in decisions to prosecute women for endangering their babies through illicit drug usage… and the administration of capital punishment.” (Pg. ix-x)
In the first chapter, he says of “the controversy over Tawana Brawley, a black teenager who alleged that she had been abducted and raped by six white men… A New York State grand jury concluded, on the basis of overwhelming evidence that Brawley’s allegations were groundless. Yet some people … continue to credit her story despite compelling evidence that she lied… Such disregard for facts and exploitation of antiracist sentiments reduce the stature of those who sink to such tactics as well as the credibility of future allegations of racial injustice.” (Pg. 7-8)
He notes, “the disproportionate prevalence of African-Americans in the population of street criminals functions to create or exacerbate racial prejudice by providing grounds for viewing blacks in general with heightened suspicion… Jesse Jackson memorably exhibited the way in which such calculations can influence even those who are fervent champions of black advancement. ‘There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved.’ The reason he felt relief was not that he prefers whites or dislikes blacks. He felt relief because he estimated that he stood a marginally greater risk of being robbed by a black person than by someone white.” (Pg. 15-16)
He states, “crime tends to be racially segregated; four-fifths of violent crimes are committed by persons of the same race as their victims. Hence, behind high rates of blacks perpetrating violent crimes are high rates of black victimization. Black teenagers are nine times more likely to be murdered than their white counterparts. [In 1990] While young black men were murdered at the rate of …140 per 100,000… for young white men the rate was 20 … per 100,000… As Gerry G. Watts acidly comments, ‘Racist white cops, however vicious, are ultimately minor irritants when compared to the viciousness of the black gangs and wanton violence.’” (Pg. 19-20)
He points out, “During the Jim Crow era, officials also used the criminal law to reimpose involuntary servitude upon blacks. When whites had no pressing need for black workers, Negroes were permitted to move about freely to wring from the labor market whatever wages they could command. When whites needed black workers, however, law enforcement officials reinforced by a panoply of byzantine statutes, limited competition for labor, deprived Negroes of freedom of movement, coerced them into labor agreements, criminalized breach of contract, and compelled black convicts to work off their ‘debt to society’ by laboring for white employers at rock-bottom prices.” (Pg. 90)
He acknowledges, “It does no good to pretend that blacks and whites are similarly situated with respect to either rates of perpetration or rates of victimization. They are not. A dramatic crime gap separates them. In relation to their percentage of the population, blacks on average both commit more crimes and are more often victimized by criminality. The familiar dismal statistics … are not figments of some Negrophobe’s imagination… the statistics confirm what more careful criminologists … conclude: … blacks, particularly young black men, commit a percentage of the nation’s street crime that is strikingly disproportionate to their percentage of the nation’s population.” (Pg. 145)
He notes, “Even in the absence of illegal racial discrimination, traditional methods of jury selection often yield a substantial ‘underrepresentation’ of blacks… [which] is attributable to a variety of factors. Voter registration lists are the most commonly used source for lists of prospective jurors… larger percentages of blacks than whites are disqualified by subjective and objective criteria… Even when they are not racially excluded by means of subjective tests… blacks tend to be disproportionately excluded by objective tests. For example, larger percentages of blacks than whites fail to finish high school, which is important since some authorities use the completion of high school as a proxy for adequate ‘intelligence’ to be a juror. Similarly, larger percentages of blacks than whites have been convicted for committing felonies, a certification of misconduct that precludes jury service in most (if not all) jurisdictions.” (Pg. 252-253)
He argues, “The claim that illicit racial beliefs and perceptions animated the enactment of the crack-powder distinction would surely be strengthened if all or even most of the black members of Congress had objected to the statue of racial grounds. The fact is, however, that eleven of the twenty-one blacks who were then members of the House of representatives voted in favor of the law which created the 100-to-1 crack-powder differential… in light of charges that the crack-powder distinction was enacted partly because of conscious or unconscious racism, it is noteworthy that NONE of the black members of Congress made that claim at the time the bill was initially discussed.” (Pg. 370-371)
He suggests, “I have not endorsed the crack-powder sentencing differential. Perhaps it should be rejected. After all, it perversely permits some large-scale traffickers in powder to be punished less severely than some small-scale traffickers in crack… There is force to the argument that policing prohibition with draconian laws in inefficient, the cause of avoidable misery, and inferior to alternative models of regulation. Maybe… the entire war on drugs is mistaken. But even if these policies are misguided, being mistaken is different from being racist, and the difference is one that greatly matters.” (Pg. 386)
He concludes, “I hope that readers will take from this book two overriding impressions. First, much remains to be done to make the administration of criminal law racially just… The legal doctrines that permit police to treat blackness as a mark of increased risk of criminality generates large pools of distrust, anger, and discord. Blacks are keenly aware that their constitutional protection against unwarranted police intrusion is of a decidedly inferior sort than the protection enjoyed by whites. This racially disparate treatment is wrong…The second impression that I want to leave with readers should serve as an antidote to these overwrought, defeatist critiques by acknowledging that the administration of criminal law has changed substantially for the better over the past half century and that there is reason to believe that, properly guided, it can be improved even more.” (Pg. 387-388)
This book will be “must reading” for those studying issues of criminality, law, and racial matters.
August 4, 2007
There is a reason why Kennedy's book has become a "must read" among law professors. Harvard law professor, Kennedy brings terrific power to his very original work in this excellent review of issues regarding race, ethnicity, and the criminal justice system. Kennedy's arguments are principled and balanced. No one has been able to write about these issues again without having to grapple with Kennedy's arguments.
March 23, 2021
After reading this, I can understand Derrick Bell's gripe with Kennedy at the time, as some of his views on the role of race within law and legislation are the stuff of fairy tales, with him of the mind that things will just fix themselves and racial balancing initiatives, such as that for juries, are unnecessary, all of which he opines while displaying the very evidence that refutes some of his thinking.
Nevertheless, Race, Crime, and the Law was a well-written book, save but the two or so typos in the later chapters.
Nevertheless, Race, Crime, and the Law was a well-written book, save but the two or so typos in the later chapters.
October 9, 2020
I think it is a great work of non fiction and analysis. Unfortunately for me, it really gets to feel like a textbook. For some reason I continually found myself needing to set page goals and really push through the end of the book.
April 17, 2025
Soooo this book did delay my reading journey due to its denseness but so unbelievably worth it. I can’t fathom how one could be working in the criminal system without using this book as a guide to understand the pigmentocracy that rules our country.
November 23, 2020
Massively insightful and informative read. As even-handed and considered as it is researched and resourced.
December 24, 2015
This is an outstanding study of the legal aspects of race and law in America. I recommend it highly and have read it twice now myself. Professor Kennedy is brilliant and his arguments sound and compelling. Every student of American history should read this.
Read
April 30, 2007great book!
May 21, 2010
Great book if you're interested in criminal law. Thought provoking and factually supported.
March 7, 2016
Portions of this are a little tough to get through but I'm happy to have persevered; an essential read.
April 21, 2008
Oh, Randall. We had so many spats over the semester but ultimately you've won me over.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews