Anna Bninski ‘23
Staff Editor
“Anything I’ve said about this is online already, so why change?” asked Judge Angel Harris, before speaking in very plain terms about the racial disparities that she sees in the criminal legal system.
On Tuesday, February 9, the Law School’s Diversity, Equity, and Belonging Committee hosted a formidable panel of speakers in conjunction with SBA’s Diversity Week and in recognition of Black History Month. The accomplished trio of Black criminal law practitioners—Judge Angel Harris, former criminal defense attorney and current Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge; Mike Herring ’90, Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Richmond for over a decade and current partner at McGuireWoods; and Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana—shared their perspectives on issues raised in Professor Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow as well as advice for current law students.
The first question posed by Professor Thomas Frampton, who moderated the panel, focused on The New Jim Crow. The premise of Professor Alexander’s book is that the criminal legal system, in its current “colorblind” iteration, accomplishes the same work of subordination and exclusion that overtly racist prior regimes sought to enforce.
Judge Harris agreed with the premise, pointing particularly to the effect of mandatory minimum sentences on communities of color, disparate opportunities to plead down, and the “caste system” created by the disenfranchisement of people who have been convicted of a crime.
The inevitable Zoom problems that plague every contemporary talk left listeners briefly in suspense as to whether they would get to hear from Odoms, but after some brief wrangling she was able to share that she keeps a pocket copy of the Constitution on her desk. “I like to remind students that slavery and involuntary servitude are ingrained from the beginning,” she said, reminding listeners that the Thirteenth Amendment allows for the involuntary servitude of people convicted of a crime. Odoms also highlighted the “insidious operation” of legal financial obligations, given that most people in jail are not formally charged with a crime, but rather, unable to make bail and simply stuck there, thereby being denied a speedy trial. Expanding on Judge Harris’s point, she noted that disenfranchisement of Black voters has been particularly systematic in the South.
Pictured: Professor Thomas Frampton (Bottom Right) moderated the panel on gathering Black perspectives on the practice of criminal law, featuring Judge Angel Harris (Top Left), Mike Herring (Top Right), and Alanah Odoms (Bottom Left). Photos Courtesy of Anna Bninski '23 and law.virginia.edu
Herring recalled reading Slavery By Another Name—which is about the racist system of forced labor that persisted from the Civil War into the twentieth century—while serving as a prosecutor. “I was so troubled. I could not force policy in such a way as to cripple my office . . . I was torn by the reality of the genesis of our criminal justice system with what we as modern practitioners thought we were doing for the greater good.”
Speaking to changes that he has seen over the course of his career, Herring said that he sees law students today rejecting the traditional roles of prosecution and defense, a shift from the conviction-oriented training he received as a young prosecutor. He also described the difference between reactions to the last two drug epidemics: crack and opioids. While appreciating the shift to a treatment-based response, which can be seen in the opioid epidemic, Herring noted that this reaction was sorely missing in response to crack-related drug infractions. “I hope that the difference in approach is a product of cultural evolution and not disparity, but time will tell.”
Odoms recounted seeing change follow President Obama’s appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, particularly in the guidance he gave to prosecutors about marijuana infractions. She also noted the educational work done by Black Lives Matter and other groups, which has led to a more diverse group of people running for prosecutor positions. “If you take folks committed to justice and fairness and put them in these positions, you’ll see a difference.” She also emphasized that the legal system should seek wholeness for the individuals and communities who have been harmed, rather than trying to “exact as much retribution and trauma as possible on people.”
Judge Harris cited Virginia’s current moves toward abolishing the death penalty as a positive development “that I wasn’t expecting to hear when I heard it.” More broadly, Judge Harris observed that she’s seen people become better informed, and less afraid to push issues and to question previous models. “Part of it is beginning to change the narrative . . . the way we talk about criminal courts. There was always this value judgement: Why are we pushing for the rights of ‘criminals?’ I say in quotes, as though they were not human beings deserving dignity and respect like everyone else.”
The panelists also discussed the need for data-driven policy; redefinitions of accountability; trauma-informed practice; the rewards and difficulties of working within a flawed system; and nuance within restorative justice. “For a certain level of offender, removal is the right option,” Mr. Herring said, while noting the importance of examining sentencing disparities. “But we need to be careful not to indict ourselves and the system so much that we pass back to communities an unfair burden.”
In parting words of wisdom for students, both Odoms and Judge Harris shared that they did not seek Law Review positions, opting instead to find programs or research that fit their specific interests. Odoms also had a question for young lawyers—or any lawyers—to keep in mind. “Any job you do, recognize that you have to come back into the community. What will your answer be to the community that you were responsible for serving?”
---
amb6ag@virginia.edu