Racial segregation is a dark and painful past of the American people. It has been landmarked by various criminal and legal cases such as the Plessy versus Ferguson court case. In this particular issue, Plessy did not follow the vehicle segregation and was punished by law. This is a landmark case which hinges on the issues of separate but equal doctrine along with de facto and de jure segregation, and the overall discrepancy in the criminal justice system.
In actual terms, there is an evident conflict and diversity in the US criminal justice. It reflects the inequality in the general society, that not all men were created equal in this specific historical context. Even if they are created equal, there is no absolute equality in real life. The Plessy and Ferguson case showcase this reality.
Introduction
Plessy versus Ferguson is a landmark case on the American civil rights. It shows the denial of the federal district court of relief to the plaintiffs based on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is supposed to be accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even when these facilities are separate (Shusta, e. al., 2011).
Homer Plessy boarded a car of the East Louisiana Railroad on June 7, 1892. This car was to be used by white patrons only as mandated by the law. Plessy should have taken the "colored" car because even when he is just one eighth Black, he was still considered Black (Shusta, e. al., 2011). Plessy was arrested and jailed. He pleaded that the state law which required East Louisiana Railroad to segregate trains had denied him his rights under the United States’ Constitution (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments) (Shusta, e. al., 2011).
Theoretical Perspectives
Plessy versus Ferguson would become one of the most famous decisions in American history because it initially established that state mandated racial segregation was actually protected by the federal law.
De facto versus de jure
De facto is a Latin word which literally means "by the fact" (“Oxford Guide to the U.S. Government, 2001). Legally, it means "in practice but not necessarily required by law" or "in real terms but not being officially established.” On the other hand, de jure means “concerning the law" (“Oxford Guide to the U.S. Government, 2001). It refers to law and governance matters or strategies which are found in the common experience as established or made without or contrary to a regulation. In simple terms, de facto is a matter of fact while de jure is designated by law (“Oxford Guide to the U.S. Government, p. 1).
As applied to racial segregation, de facto means that racial separation exists as a matter of custom rather than as prescribed by law (Edwards, et. al., 2002). For example, one family may welcome the Blacks in their home but the others may not do so. As another illustration, some American families may be open to Blacks since they need slaves for their farms. This type of segregation may have informally emerged because of various social and economic reasons. However, this is not enforced by law.
On the other hand, de jure segregation is the separation of people on the basis of race as required by law. For example, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1865) required the separation of public facilities for Blacks and whites (Edward, et. al., 2002). Thus, Blacks were required to attend a separate school for the Blacks. They were asked to use separate public toilets, public drinking fountains, and the likes. The separate facilities for blacks were supposed to be equal to the facilities provided for whites. This “separate but equal” doctrine was endorsed by the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (Shusta, e. al., 2011).
The sad reality was that the separation of facilities for Black people was rare. There was also a blurred line in de jure segregation. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against de jure racial segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Hence, in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed de jure segregation (Ibid.).
Equality of results versus equality of opportunity
This also reflects the problem with equality when it comes to race and the laws. The formal definitions of “equality of results” and “equality of opportunity” define the problems with the concept of equality in the actual sense as it is used in the society. To appropriate the words of equality and one’s personal freedom is relative to how we view the laws and the civil rights of the people against our own rights. If there is equality before the law, then why are some people in conflict with this law with regards to how they conduct their everyday affairs? Thus, there is a problem.
Discrepancy in the law and criminal justice
In actual terms, there is an evident conflict and diversity in the criminal justice. It reflects the inequality in the general society, that not all men were created equal in this specific historical context. Even if they are created equal, there is no absolute equality in real life. However, this was ingrained in the Declaration of Independence and the people attempt its best effort to apply this equality into practice.
There is a famous saying that my rights stop when one freedom is infringed or another man’s right is curtailed. This only shows that freedom is also a problematic concept because one cannot exercise al his freedom without, at one point, hurting or infringing the other people’s rights and freedom. The Constitution guarantees the people’s freedom through the Bill of Rights. Thus, the people have free speech, the right to protect themselves through arms, etc. These rights can cause equality between citizens as an individual right just like Plessy’s is the same as any other citizen’s rights. However, the exercise of this right is the problem. In a similar light, the individual right of one person can cause further inequality against the law. What if one use his/her freedom to exclude the Blacks from his/her peers? Hence, freedom and equality conflict with each other.
Historical Influence of Diversity on Police Methods and Processes
Further, the constitutionality of this act is confronted on the ground that it conflicts with both the 13th and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and the abolishment of slavery, which prohibits some restrictive laws on the part of the states (Edward, et. al., 2002). In the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, the 13th Amendment is very much relied upon by the accused.
A statute which just implies a legal boundary between the white and colored races, a distinction which is based on the color of the said races. This will eternally exist as long as the Whites are recognized apart from the colored ones. However, there must be no distinction in the legal equality of the said races or must it reestablish a state of forced servitude (Shusta, et. al., 2011).
The concept of absolute equality
The amendments of the law was certainly intended to implement an absolute equality of the Whites and the Blacks before the law. However, in the distinct nature of things it could not aim to eradicate the distinctions based upon color or to impose social, apart from political, equality, or an integration of these two races upon terms inadequate to either Edward, et. al., 2002). Laws allowing and even requiring their separation in places where they are prone to be brought into contact do not often mean the inferiority of either race to the other. Generally, if not globally, this should be recognized as within the competency of the state laws in the exercise of their police power (Shusta, et. al., 2011). The most usual example of this is linked with the creation of distinguished schools for White and colored children. This has been accepted as a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been widely and very enthusiastically acknowledged (Shusta, et. al., 2011).
To illustrate, the statute of Louisiana asked those administering the passenger transport among the states to render equal rights and privileges in every aspects of the transport all parts of the vessel, given to all persons traveling within that state, upon transport used in that line of public service, without distinction on the virtue of race or color. The owner of such transport was also subjected to an action for damages if they excluded colored passengers on account of their color from the cabin reserved by him for the use of Whites. In terms of interstate commerce, this was considered void and unconstitutional (Shusta, et. al., 2011). The Louisiana court in this example, however, wholly disclaimed that it had anything to do with the statute as a regulation of internal commerce, or influencing anything else than commerce among the states.
The concept of property
It is argued by Plessy versus Ferguson that in any combined community, the general opinion of being part of a dominant race, in this certain case, the White race, is considered property. Similarly, a right of his action or of his inheritance is also considered as property (Shusta, et. al., 2011). The disaprity is that, even when this is succumbed to, in the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, the implication to diversity and conflict or equality is still unclear and not distinct. Also, the case does not show how the law or the statute deprives the victim, Plessy, in whatever way as to his right of property (Edward, et. al., 2002). However, If he happens to be White and was asked to take the colored vessel or coach, he seems to be more entitled to file a legal action for damages against the transport for being deprived of his “property” as it was considered so. On the other hand, if this is the opposite case, as illustrated by the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, even when his right to his “property” has been taken (since they have equality before the law), he is not legally given the recognition of being a White man.
How laws justify the inequality in diversity
In this line, it is again reflected in these arguments that the state laws requiring railways to give distinct transportation facilities for the two different races is justified. It is also justified that the state law is authorized to require distinct vessels to be made available for people who has different physical and/or ethnic features (such as different hair color, etc.) or those who are not American citizens or belong to specific nationalities. It is also lawful to enact legislatures requiring non Whites to walk on one side of the street, a lane different from where the Whites thread on. The state can also enact laws requiring White men's residences to be distinctly painted different from the colors of those colored men’s houses or their transport or commercial signs to be of different colors, based on the theory that both aspects of the street, even when the other is for the non Whites, is equally good. This also means that even when the houses or businesses are painted differently, it is conceived to be the same quality.
References:
Affirmative Action: History and Rationale. (2010). Stanford Encyclopedia. Retrieved on November 8, 2012 from, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/.
Edwards, G., M. P. Wattenburg & R. L. Linesberry. (2002). Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, 10th ed. Addison Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., New York.
Oxford Guide to the U.S. Government. (July 4, 2001). “De facto.” USA: Oxford University Press.
Shusta, R. M., Levine, D. R., Wong, H. Z., Olson, A. T., Harris, P. R. (2011). Multicultural law
enforcement: strategies for peacekeeping in a diverse society (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
