# data[].attributes.headline
Another example of lynching, but multiple people at a time

# data[].attributes.subject
Another example of lynching, but multiple people at a time

# data[].attributes.body
This image displays the town of Maycomb distinctly. It shows a lot of goldfish with the same color swarming a lone, differently colored goldfish. The orange ones show all of the white folk in Maycomb, and the dark one shows the much smaller community of African Americans in Maycomb. It is symbolizing that the dark goldfish, or African Americans, have nowhere to go in the fish bowl; like Maycomb's society, they are shrewdly outnumbered and stereotyped because of their racial background.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A justice system which tolerates injustice is doomed to collapse.
- Leonard Noisette, quoted in Reducing Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System (2000)

In 1991 in Los Angeles, a bystander videotaped police officers beating Rodney King, a black man, after a car chase. People in the African-American community had long complained of cases of police brutality. At long last, they had clear evidence - a videotape. But at the trial in state court, the jury acquitted the four officers of using excessive force. A major riot erupted in Los Angeles following the verdict.

Although two of the officers were subsequently convicted in federal court, many in the African-American and in other minority communities argue that this case shows how difficult it is for people of color to get justice from the criminal justice system. Racial discrimination, they say, permeates the system.

Critics who claim that racism taints the system have cited its treatment of African-American and Hispanic males. For example, a Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis showed that if current incarceration rates remain unchanged, 32 percent of black males and 17 percent of male Latinos born in 2001 can expect to spend time in prison during their lifetime. This compares to only 6 percent of white males who will go to prison. African-Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but today compose 40 percent of all prison inmates and 42 percent of those sentenced to death.

The question remains whether these statistics come from racism in the criminal justice system or from other causes. Social scientists and politicians have argued about this question for decades.

In a controversial 1975 article, titled "White Racism, Black Crime, and American Justice," criminologist Robert Staples argued that discrimination pervades the justice system. He said the legal system was made by white men to protect white interests and keep blacks down. Staples charged that the system was characterized by second-rate legal help for black defendants, biased jurors, and judges who discriminate in sentencing.

A dozen years later, sociologist William Wilbanks rejected the discrimination argument. In his book, The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, Wilbanks reviewed scores of studies that showed statistical inequalities between whites and blacks in arrest rates, imprisonment, and other areas of criminal justice. He found that the inequalities came from factors other than racial discrimination, such as poverty and the defendant's prior record.

Other sociologists, too, have suggested that the apparent inequalities have more to do with poverty than race. Street crimes such as robbery and assault, prominent in the statistics, are usually committed by people from poor backgrounds. Today, about one quarter of all African Americans and Latinos live below the official poverty line. This compares to about 10 percent of all whites.

The connection between poverty and crime has long been noted. During the 1930s, a much larger part of the white population was poor, and whites committed a greater percentage of street crime. Whites then accounted for nearly 80 percent of those in prisons and jails compared to 36 percent today. The question of poverty alone may well account for many of the apparent inequalities in the system.

A RAND Corporation study, however, unearthed some disturbing data. RAND compared the treatment of whites and blacks at key decision points in the criminal justice system. The researchers found that black defendants seemed to be treated more harshly at key points such as sentencing. But the researchers did not identify a cause for these inequalities. Later studies have provided more insight into this data.

Arrest

African Americans accounted for more than a third of the arrests in 2010 for violent crimes. This far surpasses their numbers in the population. Does this disparity come from racial discrimination? Those who say "no" point out that this percentage corresponds to reports from the National Crime Victimization Survey. This survey interviews thousands of victims of crime each year. The percentage of victims who say their perpetrator was black closely matches the percentage of African Americans arrested. A survey of arrest studies concluded, however, that "police are involved in at least some discrimination against members of racial and ethnic minorities."

African-Americans also have a disproportionately high arrest rate for drug possession and trafficking. Blacks are only 12 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, but they constituted almost a third of those arrested in 2010. This may be due in part to the use of "racial profiling." In many parts of the country, it is alleged that police, using drug courier profiles stop black males for alleged driving violations. A study in New Jersey documenting traffic stops in1989-91 found that 72 percent of drivers stopped and arrested were African-American, while only 14 percent of cars had a black driver or occupant. State data for the same period showed that blacks and whites had the same rate of traffic violations. A study in Maryland a few years later showed similar results: 17 percent of traffic-code violators were black, but 72 percent of those stopped and searched were black. These types of law enforcement policies may result in blacks acquiring a criminal record more rapidly than whites.

In many jurisdictions, more blacks than whites are released after arrest. This is particularly true for less serious offenses such as prostitution, gambling, and public drunkenness. What this means is unclear. Some say it means that police and prosecutors are more likely to treat African Americans leniently. Others say it means that blacks are more likely to be arrested on insufficient evidence or harassed by police.

The release rate also varies according to neighborhood. If blacks are arrested in largely minority neighborhoods, they are more likely to be released than whites. But there is no difference in integrated neighborhoods.

Plea Bargaining

More than 90 percent of all criminal cases never go to trial. The defendant pleads guilty, often after the prosecutor and defense attorney negotiate. A 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains. Twenty-five percent of whites, 18 percent of blacks, and 12 percent of Latinos got their sentences reduced through bargaining. The reason for the disparity was not determined.

The San Jose Mercury News conducted a massive study of 700,000 California legal cases over a 10-year period. The paper reported in December 1991 that a third of the white adults who were arrested, but had no prior record, were able to get felony charges against them reduced. Only a quarter of the African-Americans and Latinos with no prior records were as successful in plea bargaining.

The Mercury News study did not blame intentional racism for these inequalities. It did, however, suggest that subtle cultural fears and insensitivity contributed to the problem. The study noted that more than 80 percent of all California prosecutors and judges are white, while more than 60 percent of those arrested are non-white.

Jury Verdicts

In 1985, Cornell law professor Sheri Lynn Johnson reviewed a dozen mock-jury studies. She concluded that the "race of the defendant significantly and directly affects the determination of guilt." In these studies, identical trials were simulated, sometimes with white defendants and sometimes with African Americans. Professor Johnson discovered that white jurors were more likely to find a black defendant guilty than a white defendant, even though the mock trials were based on the same crime and the same evidence.

Professor Johnson also found that black jurors behaved with the reverse bias. They found white defendants guilty more often than black defendants. Furthermore, the race of the victim in the case affected both groups. If the victim was black, white jurors tended to find a white defendant less blameworthy. In the same way, if the victim was white, black jurors found black defendants less blameworthy.

According to these mock-jury experiments, both white and black jurors seem to discriminate. Professor Johnson did not, however, think the juror bias was intentional. "Because the process of attributing guilt on the basis of race appears to be subconscious," Johnson says, "jurors are unlikely either to be aware of or to be able to control that process."

The mock trials did have one encouraging result. When white and black mock jurors met together, as many real juries do, the effect of race tended to disappear. This result seems to indicate that the best way to eliminate racial bias in verdicts is to select racially mixed juries.

A study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2012 seemed to confirm much of Johnson's research. It examined data from felony jury trials in Florida from 2000 to 2010. The researchers found that

(i) juries formed from all‑white jury pools convict black defendants significantly . . . more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member.

The U.S. Supreme Court has moved to promote racially mixed juries by prohibiting prosecutors and defense lawyers from using peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors based on race. (See Batson v. Kentucky, 1986, and Georgia v. McCollum, 1992.) Justice Thurgood Marshall went even further and called for ending the use of peremptory challenges altogether. Only by banning peremptory challenges, Justice Marshall said, can racial discrimination in jury selection be ended ( Batson v. Kentucky).

More than twenty years later, there is growing evidence that the rulings in Batson and McCollum are difficult to enforce. Studies of cases in many states show that both prosecutors and defense lawyers often continue to rely on race-based stereotypes in selecting juries. In 2005 in Miller-El v. Dretke, the Supreme Court reviewed a case involving a black Texas death-row inmate. Miller-El was tried in 1986 for the death of a clerk during a robbery at a Holiday Inn in Dallas. At the trial, the prosecutors had used peremptory challenges to remove 10 of 11 potential black jurors. The Supreme Court found clear evidence that the prosecutors' decision was the result of racial bias and overturned the conviction. The majority stated that allowing discrimination in jury selection "invites cynicism respecting the jury's neutrality" and undermines public confidence in the courts. In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer echoed Justice Marshall and suggested that the whole system of peremptory challenges should be reconsidered.

Sentencing

The RAND Corporation study found that convicted African-Americans were more likely than whites to go to prison. And their sentences were longer. "This disparity," the study concluded, "suggests that probation officers, judges, and parole boards are exercising discretion in sentencing or release decisions in ways that result in de facto discrimination against blacks." De facto means the discrimination exists in fact, but without legal authority. It may not be intentional.

Unintended discrimination can occur at many points in the legal process. Probation officers often prepare pre-sentencing reports for a judge. The judge uses the reports to help make sentencing decisions. Reports include information on the criminal's prior record, family background, education, marital status, and employment history. Many African-Americans convicted of crimes come from deprived backgrounds. They may have things in their record - unemployment, trouble in school, family problems - that judges, who largely come from middle-class backgrounds, cannot relate to. This may sway some judges to treat them more harshly in sentencing.

In a 1999 survey of studies on discrimination in the justice system, researcher Christopher Stone found that much of the disparity in sentencing could be traced to differences in arrest charges and prior records of those convicted. He concluded: "There is no evidence of disparity that stretches across the justice system as a whole . . . . But studies of individual jurisdictions and specific parts of the court process do find some evidence of race bias in a significant number of cases."

Stone considered drug offences separately. Some federal mandatory sentences have come under fire for discriminating against minorities. Critics point to different sentences mandated for crack cocaine, a drug popular in poor minority communities, and powder cocaine, a drug used in wealthier communities. Under federal law, dealing 28 grams of crack gets a first-time offender a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. To receive a similar mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in powder cocaine, an offender must possess 500 grams. Stone stated: "Whatever one believes about the rationality of the decision to create special, harsher penalties for crack cocaine, the concentration of these sentences on black defendants is striking." (See pages xxxx-xxxx for details on crack and powder cocaine sentencing.)

States often have similar disparities in drug sentencing laws. In a 1996 study of California drug sentencing laws, researchers found that possession of crack cocaine and heroin, more commonly used by minorities, carried stiffer penalties than possession of methamphetamines, more commonly used by whites.

Death Penalty

University of Iowa law professor David Baldus studied 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. The Baldus study showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times more likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks. The study also revealed that black defendants who murdered whites had by far the greatest chance of being sentenced to death.

A Georgia black man who had been sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer used this study in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He claimed that the Baldus study proved that Georgia's jurors and judges discriminated against African-American defendants. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court accepted the results of the study, but ruled that it did not prove discrimination. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell concluded that the study failed to "demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias affecting the Georgia capital sentencing process." ( McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987.)

While the Baldus study showed a big disparity in death penalty verdicts depending on the race of the victim, it found that black defendants were only 1.1 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants. A Government Accounting Office report in 1990 also found no clear statistical data showing that the race of a defendant affected the determination of a death sentence. (The report did find, however, that the defendant was much more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim was white than if the victim was non-white.)

A more recent study, however, showed that race-of-defendant bias seems to plague the federal system. A Department of Justice study of the federal system between 1995 and 2000 found that of 159 cases that federal attorneys approved for death-penalty prosecution, 72 percent involved minority defendants. The study also found that many more white defendants received pretrial waivers for the death penalty in a plea agreement than did blacks and Latinos. An earlier congressional report reviewed cases involving people convicted under a drug kingpin law between 1988 and 1994. That report found that while only 24 percent of those convicted under the law were black, the prosecutors chose to pursue the death penalty much more frequently against blacks than whites (78 percent of death penalty defendants were black, and only 11 percent were white and 11 percent Latino).

While racial disparities continue to exist in the American criminal justice system, commentators differ over the cause. Supreme Court decisions since 1960 have rooted out many overtly racist practices, such as in jury selection, but it is more difficult to address unintentional racist factors. Because these factors come from subtle assumptions and fears deeply ingrained in the wider society, only when society changes will they disappear.

Critics of the system, however, insist that inequalities, regardless of their basis, should not be swept under the rug. They must be paid attention to and any discrimination found must be eliminated. Policies that lead to discriminatory results must be re-examined. Many critics believe that the disparities in the system would be easier to accept as unbiased if more decision makers - police, prosecutors, judges, and juries - were people of color.

For Discussion

1. Describe the disparities between white and black defendants at each of the following key decision points: arrest, plea bargaining, jury verdicts, sentencing, and death penalty.

2. What do you think accounts for these disparities? Explain.

3. According to Andrew Hacker, author of Two Nations, Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal, "The feeling persists that a black man who rapes or robs a white person has inflicted more harm than black or white criminals who prey on victims of their own race." Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

Class Activity: Toward a Colorblind Justice System

Various proposals have been put forward to prevent discrimination in arrests, plea bargaining, jury verdicts, sentencing, and the death penalty. In this activity, students evaluate a few of these and come up with suggestions of their own.

1. Form small groups. Each group should focus on one of the five policy areas below and should:

a. Read its policy, evaluate it, and report back to the class.
b. To evaluate the policy, answer the following questions:

(1) What problem is the policy designed to address? Does it address the problem? Why or why not?
(2) Who might support the policy? Who might oppose it? Why?
(3) What benefits might come from the policy?
(4) What costs might result from the policy?
(5) What other policies might address the problem? Are they better? Why?
(6) What policy should be adopted? Why?

2. The groups should report back. Conclude the activity with a discussion using the debriefing questions on page xxxx.

I. Arrests

Policy: Police should collect data on the race and release records of every person they arrest.

Pros: This will enable departments to track officers who arrest minorities without sufficient cause.

Cons: Police have too much paperwork already and the statistics collected will be meaningless.

II. Plea Bargaining

Policy: Plea bargaining should be abolished.

Pros: It will do away with an informal process subject to abuse because the courts do not review it. It will ensure that all defendants have their day in court.

Cons: Doing away with plea bargaining will clog the courts with cases awaiting trial, resulting in increased court costs.

III. Jury Verdicts

Policy: Peremptory challenges should be abolished. (Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to exclude a limited number of prospective jurors for any reason except race and gender.)

Pros: Even though they are not supposed to, attorneys still use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of race. This will end the practice.

Cons: It is already illegal to exclude jurors on account of race. Doing away with peremptory challenges is too extreme. These challenges help both the prosecution and defense exclude jurors who they feel might not be impartial.

IV. Sentencing

Policy: Federal law should not make first-time drug offenders face mandatory sentences. Judges should be allowed more discretion in sentencing these drug offenders.

Pros: Mandatory minimum sentences cause first-time offenders, mostly minorities, to go into an already overcrowded prison system.

Cons: Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to show we are serious in our war on drugs.

V. Death Penalty

Policy: Congress should reverse the decision in McCleskey. If statistical studies show racial disparities in a state's imposition of the death penalty, then minority defendants should not be sentenced to death in that state.

Pros: Race should play no role in whether or not a person receives the death penalty. The death penalty should be limited to aggravated cases where whites and blacks receive the same treatment.

Cons: Mere discrepancies in statistics should not invalidate the death penalty. A defendant should have to show discrimination in the particular case or that the state intended to discriminate.

Debriefing Questions

1. Which policies garnered the most support? The least support? Why?

2. What other policies did you think of that could prevent racial discrimination in the criminal justice system? Do you think they would work? Why or why not?

3. Why is it important that the criminal justice system not be perceived as racially biased?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Color of Justice - Constitutional Rights Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1991 in Los Angeles, a bystander videotaped police officers beating Rodney King, a black man. People in the African-American community had long complained of cases of police brutality. At long last, they had clear evidence--a videotape. But at the trial in state court, the jury acquitted the four officers of using excessive force.

# data[].attributes.headline
Racism is still prevalent in today's culture. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Racism is still prevalent in today's culture. 

# data[].attributes.body
In the community, people believe that racism doesn't happen. It still happens, but it is hidden better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Black Man Convicted By a Racist Juror Is About to Be Executed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fate of Keith Tharpe was entrusted into the hands of a juror who was unconvinced he, as a black person, had a soul

# data[].attributes.headline
Police still make assumptions on arresting blacks over whites due to race.

# data[].attributes.subject
Police still make assumptions on arresting blacks over whites due to race.

# data[].attributes.body
In today's day and age, people are more likely to arrest a black person over a white person.  In this case it was over a grainy photo, but that isn't always the case.  In To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Robinson gets falsely accused of raping Mayella when, in reality, it was Bob Ewell, her father. In today's time, people believe that racism has disappeared, but it is still a major part in society. Black people shouldn't be accused of something they didn't do, just like Tom was in the novel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PALMETTO, Fla. - Kevin Gray told WFTS it wasn't just a simple case of mistaken identity. Gray said the Palmetto Police Department's lousy police work led to his wrongful arrest.

"They just need better detectives, better officers (that are) going to actually investigate, that was a mistake they could've really avoided," Gray said.

Gray was arrested for a crime he never even knew happened in a state where the crime wasn't committed.

On September 14, Gray said his brother was driving him to Atlanta to celebrate his birthday. Somewhere in Tift County he said his brother was pulled over for speeding. The deputy asked Gray for his license and the deputy came back telling him there was a warrant for his arrest out of Florida for battery on a law enforcement officer.

Deputies took him to jail and called authorities in Florida to get him. What was supposed to be a weekend of fun turned into 10 terrifying days behind bars.

Kevin Gray's mugshot from when he was wrongfully arrested

"I just started crying," Gray said. "I was explaining 'I take care of my daughter by myself. Where is my daughter going to go?' "

Gray's daughter is just two years old. For 10 days family members said she cried for her father.

All of the issues Gray is now wrongly facing started back in January. Police responded to a Walmart in Palmetto, Florida for a call that a couple was inside the store fighting. Bystanders were calling 911 to report the domestic abuse. The man reportedly hit the female. Officials said that the female domestic violence victim was uncooperative.

The probable cause affidavit said when officers arrived the man took off. The report said as officers tried to arrest him, he jumped in his car to drive off. An officer got a "hold of the def's jacket... the def began to strike Ofc. Lee's arm with a closed fist, in an attempt to make Ofc. Lee let go of his jacket."

The officer said he was able to "obtain a license plate from the vehicle and using that and the surveillance photos, the def was positively identified."

"I haven't had a license plate since 2014," Gray said.

For several months Palmetto Police Chief Scott Tyler said detectives worked leads. At some point, Gray was identified as the suspect from the Walmart attack by the officer that he supposedly hit and others.

Gray said police never came looking for him. He works at an assisted living facility and said he was never questioned by detectives about the case. It wasn't until he traveled through Georgia, nearly nine months later, that he said he even encountered a law enforcement officer. No one believed him, and he said he was forced to pledge allegiance to a gang in jail or face the consequences.

On Sunday, detectives arrived in Georgia to bring Gray back to Florida to face charges.

It wasn't until Tuesday after meeting with detectives at the police department that they realized they had the wrong guy.

"On the picture, I knew it wasn't me," Gray said he told police on Tuesday. "And, I was like 'it's not me there' and all the police was looking and said 'you are right it's not you.' "

Gray said he is now still fighting to get his job back and clear his name.

Photo courtesy: Kevin Gray

The Florida State Attorney is sending a letter to the court stating "that Kevin Gray was unintentionally misidentified as the perpetrator of a crime which, the evidence has since demonstrated, he did not commit. All charges against him in this matter have now been dropped."

"It just destroyed everything," Gray said. "I lost so much, job wages, I couldn't even go in today, I probably can't pay my bills for this month. They (could've done) way more than just taken a Walmart picture. But you couldn't even see the Walmart picture, nobody saw the color picture from the police, in jail from the judge. The only way I saw a color picture is because I went down today. That's how I got the color picture and was able to see who it was."

The chief is now looking into what went wrong to misidentify Gray.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innocent man sent to jail because of bad photo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PALMETTO, Fla. - Kevin Gray told WFTS it wasn't just a simple case of mistaken identity. Gray said the Palmetto Police Department's lousy police work led to his wrongful arrest. "They just need better detectives, better officers (that are) going to actually investigate, that was a mistake they could've really avoided," Gray said.

# data[].attributes.headline
It was easy to blame a race different than your own.

# data[].attributes.subject
It was easy to blame a race different than your own.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes an incident that it very inhumane, but acceptable at the time of the novel. The articles depicts an arrestment of a colored man, while police allow actual offender to escape. This happened because police saw a suspect, and most likely shifted the blame racially because it is easier to understand the motive/reasoning for a colored person to commit a crime because of their social status and stereotype. Most racist people believe that all African American folk are poor, unintellectual, and unethical, which makes the white person to them more desirable and "less likely" to commit a crime. They are blaming someone that is easily blamable, the African American race is like a scapegoat to the rest of the crowd; exactly like how Mayella shifted the blame on Tom Robinson in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police violently arrested an innocent black man while the white suspect they were supposed to catch escaped, a watchdog has found.

Andrew Okorodudu, 47, was talking with friends in Camden when he was "grabbed" by non-uniformed police officers, thrown to the ground and handcuffed.

They had been tasked with apprehending a bicycle thief - who was standing metres away and looked on before cycling away on the stolen bike.

An internal investigation by the Metropolitan Police concluded that the arrest had been reasonable and no misconduct proceedings were necessary, but the finding was overruled.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct, formerly the IPCC, upheld Mr Okorodudu's complaint about his arrest in February 2016.

It said the four officers should face disciplinary action after finding their actions could be tantamount to gross misconduct, with Mr Okorodudu needing medical treatment for injuries to his head, legs, knees and wrists.

He has separately received a four-figure settlement from the Metropolitan Police, which also sent him what his lawyers described as a "half-hearted" apology.

Joanna Bennett, of Hodge Jones & Allen, said: "Despite all the initiatives and training to stamp out racial bias, it clearly still exists within the police force.

"Despite the obvious description of the suspect as white, the first officer on the scene instead immediately targets a black man and then uses excessive force to arrest him.

"Mr Okorodudu has since received damages for his ordeal but the apology from the police was half-hearted to say the least.

"What is equally concerning is that the police's own investigation concluded that the officers had done nothing wrong. It was only when the IOPC reviewed the evidence and issued a directive for a misconduct hearing that they were called to task over their behaviour."

A spokesperson for Scotland Yard said a civil claim for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault was settled in October "by mutual agreement" but would not discuss its terms.

The IOPC report described how a team of officers working on a bicycle theft operation were alerted after a silver bike was stolen in Camden.

Their control room relayed a description of the suspect as a white man wearing a light green jacket, blue jeans, flat cap and a black rucksack, saying he was standing in front of an off-licence.

Shortly afterwards Mr Okorodudu, who was black and wearing a grey jacket, rode up to a group of cycle couriers who were standing near the suspect on his own white bike.

There was no sufficient explanation of why Mr Okorodudu had been identified as a suspect when all four officers had been given a full and accurate description of the real thief's race and clothing, it said.

Officers claimed the lighting was poor but the IOPC said the colour of his skin and jacket "was clear" in CCTV footage.

They also said they did not know the suspect's ethnicity, despite knowing the details of his clothing and officers in the control room said all details had been given over the radio.

"It is difficult to accept that there were reasonable grounds for the arrest as Mr Okorodudu was of a different ethnicity, had a different colour jacket on and also had a white bike," the IOPC said.

"If the control room had provided information that the suspect had entered and then stood outside the off licence, it is difficult to understand why the officers concentrated on Mr Okorodudu, who was cycling."

The report, finding that the "arrest may not have been reasonable," described how CCTV footage shows the four police officers "running past the suspect" to Mr Okorodudu, who was facing away from them at the time.

The first PC "failed to speak to Mr Okorodudu but simply arrived at the scene and grabbed him," the IOPC report said.

It explained that he had his earphones in at the time and may not have seen or heard the plain clothes officer identify herself as police. The report also said she moved her hand away in a manner which was "not unreasonable".

The action caused the three other police officers to intervene and push Mr Okorodudu to the ground, while one of them got him "in a loose headlock to gain control" before he was handcuffed.

Only then was the reason for the arrest explained, while the man protested his innocence, before one of the police officers realised they had the wrong person and the handcuffs were removed.

By that point, the real thief had cycled away on the stolen bike.

Police claimed Mr Okorodudu was resisting arrest but the IOPC found CCTV footage shows he "did not resist" and was tackled to the ground too quickly to be able to "act in the manner officers have described".

The IOPC said police should have instead spoken to Mr Okorodudu, adding: "The situation quickly got out of hand and that the force used may have been excessive and unreasonable."

It found that the incident could have amounted to common assault. But that the statutory time limit for bringing a criminal prosecution against officers had passed.

The IOPC also accused Scotland Yard's internal investigator of failing to consider the apparent contradictions in police notebooks and only "following the evidence to support its decision".

All four officers underwent a misconduct hearing in November, when three were found to have no case to answer and a fourth was found to have failed to obtain a radio code that identifies ethnicity - a failure found to "contribute to unconscious bias".

An IOPC spokesperson said: "Mr Okorodudu complained to the Metropolitan Police over his arrest in February 2016.

"After being unhappy about the outcome of two investigations into his complaint he appealed to the IOPC which we upheld.

"In August 2017 we directed the Metropolitan Police to hold misconduct meetings for four officers, following which one officer received management advice."

The case came after a review led by Labour MP David Lammy found "overt discrimination" against ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system and the Met was found to be disproportionately using stop and search against black people.
We'll tell you what's true. You can form your own view.
At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That's why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks - all with no ads.
Subscribe now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police violently arrest innocent black man while white suspect they were supposed to catch escapes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police violently arrested an innocent black man while the white suspect they were supposed to catch escaped, a watchdog has found. Andrew Okorodudu, 47, was talking with friends in Camden when he was "grabbed" by non-uniformed police officers, thrown to the ground and handcuffed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Another example of extremities caused by a racist outlook on people.

# data[].attributes.subject
Another example of extremities caused by a racist outlook on people.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about a man who was sentenced to death-row for a crime he did not commit. The accuser had completely lied about the incident, blaming it on him because of the color of his skin. He was proclaimed innocent after being on death row for 42 years. This is a prime present-day example of the trial that happened in "To Kill a Mockingbird;" there was a false accusation, a fabled story, and it ended up being a wrongful conviction of a person whom otherwise was completely innocent. Racism still goes on in present day society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
NaijaGistsBlog Nigeria, Nollywood, Celebrity ,News, Entertainment, Gist, Gossip, Inspiration, Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated May 15, 2017 - Innocent Black Man Jailed, Sentenced To Death For Murder 1975 For A Crime He Didn't Commit Released From US Prison After Witness Confessed He Lied
One Of Longest Serving US Prisoner Placed On Death Row Freed From Ohio Prison
Since 1989, about 2005 innocent people wrongfully convicted of murder have been released from prison in the United States of America.

One of such is Ricky, who served closed to 40 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.

In 1975, a man was killed after a robbery attack in Ricky's Cleveland neighbourhood.

Days after the murder, police banged on his door and arrested him based on the false testimony of a young boy who claimed he witnessed the murder.

The armed policemen arrested Ricky and two of his friends. They were convicted of murder and placed on death row since then.

Ricky who lost his mother while he was in prison thought his case was forgotten until Ohio Innocence Project came to his rescue after the then murder witness recanted.

Ricky who is now one of longest serving Prisoners in the United States was happy to have been exonerated.

After his release, he met his accuser who is now a middle aged man.

On why he made the attempt, Ricky said:

Ricky recently featured on The Doctors where he recounted his ordeals.

Though he received $2million compensation from Ohio State, he later sued police for wrongful arrest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innocent Black Man Jailed, Sentenced To Death For Murder In 1975 Released From Prison After Witness Confessed He Lied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated May 15, 2017 - Innocent Black Man Jailed, Sentenced To Death For Murder 1975 For A Crime He Didn't Commit Released From US Prison After Witness Confessed He Lied One Of Longest Serving US Prisoner Placed On Death Row Freed From Ohio Prison Since 1989, about 2005 innocent people wrongfully convicted of murder have been released from prison in the United States of America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please sign up here to have the Race/Related newsletter delivered weekly to your inbox.
No one wants to be called a racist.

During Michael D. Cohen's hearing before the House Oversight Committee this week, Representative Mark Meadows, a conservative Republican from North Carolina, was incensed when Rashida Tlaib, a freshman Democrat from Michigan, used the word "racist" to describe a bold move from Mr. Meadows during the hearing.

Mr. Meadows, who is white, summoned Lynne Patton, a black woman with ties to the Trump family, before the committee to defend the president's character against charges of racism leveled by Mr. Cohen.

Ms. Patton, who is an official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, stood silently and nodded while Mr. Meadows spoke on her behalf and presented her as proof of Mr. Trump's good relationship with black people.

Ms. Tlaib, who is Palestinian-American, insisted that trotting out a black woman in this way was itself an act of racism, that it was racist to "actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber, in this committee."

Mr. Meadows returned the favor by calling Ms. Tlaib's comments racist, and moved to have her words stricken from the record.

In an exchange with the committee chairman, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, Ms. Tlaib said she did not mean to call Mr. Meadows a racist, only to describe his behavior as racist.

So, can you do something racist and not be a racist? I'd say the answer is yes - at least sometimes.

There was little chance that these three representatives were going to have a meaningful conversation about race in America during a supercharged political moment broadcast live on television, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

Recently, a colleague of mine who is thoughtful on these issues pointed out that she had been using a word that she did not know was offensive and racist. Once someone explained to her that it was and why, she stopped using it. And that was that.

In other words, even the best of us can get tripped up on race. You can have black friends, your nieces and nephews can be black, you can live in a diverse neighborhood and still behave in racist ways and say racist things.

The rapid-fire exchange between Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Cummings and Mr. Meadows was a textbook example of how not to deal with accusations of racism - finger-pointing, sharp words and more talking than listening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please sign up here to have the Race/Related newsletter delivered weekly to your inbox. No one wants to be called a racist. During Michael D. Cohen's hearing before the House Oversight Committee this week, Representative Mark Meadows, a conservative Republican from North Carolina, was incensed when Rashida Tlaib, a freshman Democrat from Michigan, used the word "racist" to describe a bold move from Mr. Meadows during the hearing.

# data[].attributes.headline
An example of present-day racism, and how, even though it looks as if it has changed, it is still prevalent.

# data[].attributes.subject
An example of present-day racism, and how, even though it looks as if it has changed, it is still prevalent.

# data[].attributes.body
In "To Kill a Mockingbird," racism is one of the driving factors of the novel. It determines a lot of character's decisions and plays important roles and creates uniform events in the novel. Harper Lee writes this book, to shine light on racism at that time. Nowadays, although not universally accepted, racism is still a very large problem being debated around the globe. In a professional area, racism still took place. It shows that inheritance of their parent's views still hasn't changed, and racism is still being taught to those of generations after its accepted time. Society has changed, though. If someone proceeds to do an act of socially, or racially, condemning/harassing someone, corporations will take actions very seriously and appropriately. This video shows how racism is still around, but is being dealt with in a completely different way

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Red Sox permanently ban a fan from Fenway Park for using a racial slur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Boston Red Sox reacted swiftly to another racially charged incident at their ballpark one night after Baltimore outfielder Adam Jones said he was subject to racist taunts at Fenway Park.

# data[].attributes.headline
Artist expresses their opinions on racism through a piece of artwork.

# data[].attributes.subject
Artist expresses their opinions on racism through a piece of artwork.

# data[].attributes.body
This detailed portrait displays a colored person, distraught about conflicts that happened because of racist views. It looks as if this person is recalling events of horrific things, like a Ku Klux Klan rally; they look to be hanging a colored person. In their right eye, it shows colored folks, shackled in chains, condemned to a life of servitude. The person in the artwork seems very distraught over the recalled events. It shows that the creator is definitively against racism, much like Harper Lee of "To Kill a Mockingbird."

# data[].attributes.headline
Lynching happened regularly in communities. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Lynching happened regularly in communities. 

# data[].attributes.body
This image depicts a large mob of white men, women, and children, whom all of which are partaking involvement in a lynch mob, by spectating. The individual being lynched is only partially visible, with their feet dangling in the air above the crowd. A lynch mob was never present in "To Kill a Mockingbird," but it was made distinct what was going to happen when Mr. Cunningham's group of men approached the jail that Tom Robinson was in. It goes to show what precautions they take when white people felt disrespected/offended.

# data[].attributes.headline
Like in "To Kill a Mockingbird," a mob of racially demeaning folk lynch an African American citizen. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Like in "To Kill a Mockingbird," a mob of racially demeaning folk lynch an African American citizen. 

# data[].attributes.body
This is an important piece of history because it shows that lynching and people being ridiculed in the novel was a real and very tragic thing that happened in the world at that time. Also the fact that it was so widely accepted and deemed as "okay" or delivering "proper justice" makes it a lot worse. This is one of the worst forms of injustice the minority, African American race faced at this time.

# data[].attributes.body
“Just what I said. Grandma says it’s bad enough he lets you all run wild, but now
he’s turned out a n*****-lover we’ll never be able to walk the streets of Maycomb
agin. He’s ruinin‘ the family, that’s what he’s doin’.”
Francis rose and sprinted down the catwalk to the old kitchen. At a safe distance
he called, “He’s nothin‘ but a n*****-lover!”
“He is not!” I roared. “I don’t know what you’re talkin‘ about, but you better cut
it out this red hot minute!”
I leaped off the steps and ran down the catwalk. It was easy to collar Francis. I
said take it back quick.
Francis jerked loose and sped into the old kitchen. “N*****-lover!” he yelled.
When stalking one’s prey, it is best to take one’s time. Say nothing, and as sure as
eggs he will become curious and emerge. Francis appeared at the kitchen door.
“You still mad, Jean Louise?” he asked tentatively.
“Nothing to speak of,” I said.
Francis came out on the catwalk.
“You gonna take it back, Fra—ancis?” But I was too quick on the draw. Francis
shot back into the kitchen, so I retired to the steps. I could wait patiently. I had sat
there perhaps five minutes when I heard Aunt Alexandra speak: “Where’s
Francis?”
“He’s out yonder in the kitchen.”
“He knows he’s not supposed to play in there.”
Francis came to the door and yelled, “Grandma, she’s got me in here and she
won’t let me out!”
“What is all this, Jean Louise?”
I looked up at Aunt Alexandra. “I haven’t got him in there, Aunty, I ain’t holdin‘
him.”
“Yes she is,” shouted Francis, “she won’t let me out!”
“Have you all been fussing?”
“Jean Louise got mad at me, Grandma,” called Francis.
“Francis, come out of there! Jean Louise, if I hear another word out of you I’ll tell
your father. Did I hear you say hell a while ago?”
“Nome.”
“I thought I did. I’d better not hear it again.”

# data[].attributes.body
But I was worrying another bone. “Do all lawyers defend n-n******, Atticus?”
“Of course they do, Scout.”
“Then why did Cecil say you defended n******? He made it sound like you were
runnin‘ a still.”
Atticus sighed. “I’m simply defending a N****—his name’s Tom Robinson. He
lives in that little settlement beyond the town dump. He’s a member of
Calpurnia’s church, and Cal knows his family well. She says they’re clean-living
folks. Scout, you aren’t old enough to understand some things yet, but there’s
been some high talk around town to the effect that I shouldn’t do much about
defending this man. It’s a peculiar case—it won’t come to trial until summer
session. John Taylor was kind enough to give us a postponement…”
“If you shouldn’t be defendin‘ him, then why are you doin’ it?”
“For a number of reasons,” said Atticus. “The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t
hold up my head in town, I couldn’t represent this county in the legislature, I
couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.”
“You mean if you didn’t defend that man, Jem and me wouldn’t have to mind you
any more?”
“That’s about right.”

# data[].attributes.body
“You can just take that back, boy!”
This order, given by me to Cecil Jacobs, was the beginning of a rather thin time
for Jem and me. My fists were clenched and I was ready to let fly. Atticus had
promised me he would wear me out if he ever heard of me fighting any more; I
was far too old and too big for such childish things, and the sooner I learned to
hold in, the better off everybody would be. I soon forgot.
Cecil Jacobs made me forget. He had announced in the schoolyard the day before
that Scout Finch’s daddy defended n******. I denied it, but told Jem.
“What’d he mean sayin‘ that?” I asked.
“Nothing,” Jem said. “Ask Atticus, he’ll tell you.”
“Do you defend n******, Atticus?” I asked him that evening.
“Of course I do. Don’t say n*****, Scout. That’s common.”
“‘s what everybody at school says.”
“From now on it’ll be everybody less one—”