>> booktv is on twitter and facebook. we want to hear from you. tweet us twitter.com/booktv or post a, on facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. >> good evening. look at the atlanta history center. my name is kate whitman. thosthere's all feedback but a k

it's good. we are missing a few people so they will start to fill in and please be nice and show them where their seats available. tonight is a lecture and we thank our sponsor ambassador and mrs. nelson for supporting this program. tonight angela davis, just a really clear, this is angela j davis for anyone who is confused, okay, is going to be talking and she the edit of "policing the black man: arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment" which shall be discussing this evening. surround her career as a lawyer, author and professor, angela j davis has dedicated effort to studying and bettering the criminal justice system in america. particularly as relates to prosecution of power and racism within the system. nice program is being broadcast for c-span, so this'll probably show up in about a week but that does me if you have a question you should go to a microphone to

ask it. i forgot to say that's an good to go back to her bio that i was like living make sure i get that in. angela davis is, she was a d.c. public defender, and was the executive director of the national rainbow coalition. she's the author of arbitrary justice, the power of the american prosecutor which one and the word. currently she is professor of law at washington college of law at american university. she is the editor of "policing the black man." please join in welcoming angela j. davis to the atlanta history center. [applause] >> thank you, kate. i want to thank the atlanta history center for having me this evening and want to thank all of you for coming out. great to see so many familiar faces.

i see people i know and people i don't know. i'm happy to see everyone and so grateful that so many of you want to hear about this issue and talk about this issue, thank you so much for being here. i want to start out by just talking a little bit about how this book came about. i was approached about two and half years ago about doing a collection of essays that would explore and contextualize the meaning awful killings of unarmed black men and boys that have occurred in recent years and when i was approached and asked, i seized the opportunity because there's an issue important to me than the unfair treatment of black and brown people in the criminal justice system in america today. in fact, it's the issue that keeps me up at night. i thought about who i would ask to join in this project and i

decided to reach out to the authors, lawyers, scholars, advocates and activists who have been teaching and writing about, litigating, advocating and agitating, and in many instances living this issue. i was very fortunate that so many of them said yes. so i really want to just take this opportunity to thank them, and many authors that contributed to this project. i'm going to do a little bit about them and about the essays this evening. but the first and want to do is read a brief excerpt from the books introduction that hope will give you a sense of what the book is about. why this book and why now. michael brown, eric garner, tamir rice, walter scott,

freddie gray, sam dubose, alton sterling, philando castile and terrence crutcher are just some of the names of the long list of unarmed black boys and men who were killed by police officers in recent years. althougthe black men have been e victims of violence advanced of the state since thomas later, technology and social media now permit us to literally bear witness to many of these killings repeatedly. millions of people have watched the video of a police officer choking eric garner to death as he struggled for air. similarly, millions of watched the video of the police officer shooting walter scott in the back as he ran for his life. who can ever forget the grainy footage of tamir rice, a 12-year-old boy, who shot by police officer while he played

alone with a toy gun in a park near his home? two videos, one from the police helicopter and another from a police dashboard camera, showed terrence crutcher walking away from police officers with his hands raised high in the air just before he was shot and killed. these images have invoked feelings of fear, sadness and outrage and serve as reminder that the lives of black men and boys continue to be devalued and destroyed with impunity at the hands of the state. to date not one of the police officers who killed his men and boys has been convicted of a single crime. to -- to the arrival of the first slaves in 1619 to the lynchings of the 19th and 20th centuries to the present day, black boys and men have been unlawfully killed by those who are sworn to uphold the law and by vigilantes who took the law in to their own hands. the national museum of african american history and culture

which opened its doors on september 24, 2016 includes exhibits that tell us to any of these killings. yet these killings are not just a part of american -- african-american history. they had continued well into the 21st century, almost 40 400 yeas after the beginning of slavery, and persist with remarkable frequency and brutality during a time when america elected its first african-american president. many of these race-based killings have inspired and reinvigorated movements for change to the brutal killing of 14-year-old emmett till in mississippi in 1955, the murder of civil rights activist medgar evers in 1963, and the assassination of martin luther king in 1968 all surface markers on the civil rights movement timeline, asked its only of the killings of black men by white racists. each tragic killing sparked nationwide protests and renewed activism in the struggle for

civil rights and racial justice in the united states. the killing of 17-year-old trayvon martin in 2012 was a pivotal marker of racial violence against black man in a 21st century. martin was killed by george zimmerman, a white man who called the police when he saw martin walking in his neighborhood. zimmerman, a member of a neighborhood crimewatch group, reported to the police that martin look suspicious and they look like he was called up to no good or on drugs or something. ignoring the dispatches warning that he should not follow martin, zimmerman ultimately shot and killed him. martin was unarmed and was on his way back to his father sounds after buying snacks at a local convenience store. initially zimmerman was not even charged with a crime, but after nationwide protests he was charged with murder. a jury ultimately acquitted in. the killing of trayvon martin, the initial failure of the prosecutor to charge zimmerman

with a crime, and simmons ultimate acquittal captured the attention of the nation. president obama even weighed in stating quote trayvon martin could have been me 35 years ago. martin's killed it also inspired the phrase black lives matter. the phrase trended on twitter at all forms of social media and was displayed on posters carried in protest after martin's killing and at the killing of black man or woman by police officer from that day forward. black lives matter ultimately came a social justice movement with chapters threat the united states and canada. many unarmed black men and boys have been killed since trayvon martin is tragic death five years ago. many of the killings occurred after police officers are julie engaged in racial profiling, stopping and arresting these men for no explainable reason other than the color of their skin. in all of the cases where black men were shot and killed, the

office is claimed that they felt threatened, even though the men were unarmed and often running away or retreating. in almost all of the cases, the police officers were never arrested or charged with a crime. the tragic owns a trayvon martin, michael brown, eric garner, walter scott, tamir rice, freddie gray, and others served as the catalyst for this anthology. but these killings also inspired the contributing authors to think about all of the ways that black men are policed in the broad sense of the word, have old and harshly at every step of the criminal process. in fact, black men are policed and treated worse than the similarly situated white counterparts at every step of the criminal justice system, from arrest through sentencing. these unwarranted disparities exist whether black men are charged with crimes or are victims of crimes.

police officers stopped, search, and rest black men far more frequently than white men engage in the same behavior. prosecutors charge black men more frequently and with more serious crimes than white men who engage in the same behavior. they are disproportionate numbers of black men in the nation's prisons and jails. criminal defendants regardless of the race are punished less harshly when the victims are black men. this anthology explores and explains the policing of black men, from slavery to the present day, and at every stage of the criminal process and beyond. many people have asked why black men? what are you focusing on black men? aren't there other people in the criminal justice system who are treated poorly? the entity that is yes. how would answer that question? black men are not the only people of color to be treated worse than their similar situated white counterparts at

every step of the criminal process. black women, latina women, licking a men, native american and of the people of color also experience violence of the hand of the state and is going toward treatment in the criminal justice system as the people were gay, lesbian and/or transgender. this books focus on black men in no way trivializes the experience of all people who face these harms. while acknowledging that other groups have been and continue to be oppressed and discriminate against, this book focuses on black men. in many ways experience a black man in the criminal justice system is unique. the most noticeable difference is that they are impacted more adversely than any other demographic in the united states. at every step of the process. black boys are disproportionately arrested and detained. black boys are more likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system than any other children.

over half of the students arrested at school and the united states and referred to the juvenile justice system are black and hispanic. and while black students represent only 16% of students and overcome the represent 27% of students referred to law enforcement, and 31% of students subjected to school arrest. black male male streets alone mp 18% of all referrals and alone. -- students. black men are disproportionate arrested, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested than whites, and 49% of black men, almost half, can expect to be arrested at least once by age 23. black men are more likely to be killed or injured during a police encounter. while more widespread killed by law enforcement and people of color, african-americans are killed at a disproportionate

rate. in fact, black men are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. black men are disproportionately imprisoned and receive longer sentences. african-americans make up approximately 35% of the prison population in the united states, 35%. by the end of 2015, black men constituted 34% of the american prison population. in 2015, 5001 of 65 i in 100,000 black men age 25-29 were imprisoned as compared to 2165 his statement and 921 black men of the same age. remarkably, the number of like man in prison or in jail on probation or on parole by the end of 2009 roughly equaled the number of enslaved in 1850.

one in three black man born in 2001, one in three, can expect to be incarcerated in his lifetime. blacks are also disproportionally sentenced to death. as of 2014, the national death row population was a proximally 42% black while the overall population is only 13.6%. so for all of those reasons this anthology focuses on the plight of black men and boys. the extraordinarily disproportionate mistreatment of black boys and men at every step of the criminal process is explored in depth in this book. as the essays made clear, the issues and problems are complex as are the solutions. the authors that i invited to join me in this project are scholars, lawyers and activists who have studied evidence of instances personally experienced the phenomenon of that which

they write. so in the essays they examine and explain the policing of black men. i want to tell you about the essays and that i want to talk about my own essay, my own contribution to the book which is about the prosecution of black men and talking about why i think the issue so important. so just pra read on tell you the title and hopefully it will inspire you to want to pick up the book and read it. the first essay is called a presumption of guilt, the legacy of america's history of racial injustice. it was written by bryan stevenson pick the second essay is the endurance of racial disparity in the criminal justice system by mark mallory, the head of the sensing project in d.c. i heard some of you, so you know who he is, remarkable hero of mine once equal justice initiative. the third as it is called boyz ii men, the role of policing and

the socialization of black boys written by professor kristen hinman of georgetown. this i will tell you all that this as it almost didn't make it to the book that so focus on black men and then after talking to chris as one of the nation's top leading experts on the juvenile justice system, i realized wow, of course it to talk about black boys and the chapters remarkable because after blackboards are treated worse in the system and black men. so that essay is pretty revealing. the next one is called racial profiling, the law, the policy and practice written by professor ren rename, hutchins center from university maryland. racial profiling is how so many of these killings start and this explains it. the next chapter is black men and the place, making implicit bias explicit. i know many of you may have heard about implicit bias. it's a theme that goes through all these essays and is at the root of so many of these killings and i'll talk a bit about that tonight. it was written by professor

catherine russell brown. the next chapter is called policing, a model for the 21st century by professors tracy mears and tom tyler. tracy cerda president obama's task force on policing in the 21st century pick the next chapter is my own chapter called the prosecution up like me. i'm going to talk about that a bit tonight. then the grand jury and police violence against black men by professor roger fairfax. a lot of people are introduced to the grand jury after ferguson when they realize the police officer would not be indicted,, so he explains the history of the grand jury and reveals some things that will probably be very surprising to many of you who witness what happened with a lot of these police officers. very different than from ordinary citizens with the grand jury. the next chapter is called elected prosecutors and police accountability by her thoughts are wanted. i focus a lot on electing good

aggressive prosecutors and that chapter would be revealing when it talks about how prosecutors are elected. the next chapter is called to black lives matter to the courts? it was written by sherrilyn ifill, director of counsel the naacp legal defense and educational fund and also by jim hee lee, co-authored the chapter with a she's a staff attorney, talks about the law and the history of the law and will reveal a lot about why it's a difficult, the courts are not exactly friendly to claim for it discoloration them or any other issues. the final chapter is called poverty, violence, a black incarceration by jeremy travis and bruce western. so those are the essays. i want to spend the range of my time before opening it up for questions talking about my own contribution to the point which is called the prosecution of black men, and also if this time a little bit about these

killings and how is it come what is it, how could it be that these police officers have not been held accountable i think is a question i get. i'm not sure i know the answer but would like to explore and talk about what i think some of the issues are. a bit about my chapter, kate mentioned i spent a lot of my time writing about prosecutors, and i have. the reason for that is that prosecutors are actually the most powerful officials in our criminal justice system. there's always been a lot of focus on police officers, and rightly so. we know there should be a focus given all that has been going on. and by the way, just to stress an image of this before, the killings of black men didn't start with trayvon martin. these of been going on since slavery. so bryan stevenson is chapter lays it out and explains it so well. of course the sugar focus on police officer to police officers have a tremendous amount of power and discretion

on the street to stop people, to search them and the law makes it easy for them to do that. but i think people should focus also on prosecutors added of thing people have been focusing on them a lot. they are the most powerful officials in our criminal justice system. police officers aske absent youe a lot of power to stop people on the street, search them, frisk them, arrest them, but police officers can only bring people to the courthouse door. it is the prosecutor who decides whether they remain entrenched in the system and end up with a criminal record and all of that. the prosecutor has so much to do with that. that is because of the two powers they have, the charging decision and the plea-bargaining decision. those two decisions made by prosecutors almost predetermine the outcome of criminal cases. why do i say that? if the police officer arrested

person on the street, they can only recommend charges to the prosecutor. they don't decide whether the person is in the criminal justice system. they can bring a case of the prosecutor and the prosecutor can decide to take it and prosecute the case or they can dismiss it. it's totally up to the prosecutor. even if this probable cause to be the person committed the offense, and that's the standard, raise the standard of probable cause is what the standard is for charging a person, more probable than not, much lower than the much higher proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they need to convict. so a prosecutor can decide to charge a person at the point where they can decide not to charge a person. it's totally within their discretion. they are accountable to no one but the chief prosecutor of that office, right? that decision is made behind closed doors. it's not a public decision. prosecutors don't tell, make a public announcement of charging

this person at a not charging that person, and here's why. they are not required to do that and they don't do that. they make those decisions behind closed doors. so you can see when there's that much discretion and power that that's where disparities can come in and where they do, right? a prosecutor can see one kid brought in, let's say he's arrested with five bags of cocaine. prosecutor has a lot of options. the police officer might say well, he's got five bags of cocaine, why don't you charge them with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, which is a felony offense that in most states carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five, ten, sometime more years. mandatory minimum any if a person is convicted and served all of that time no matter what. so the prosecutor facing, looking at potential defendant with five bags of cocaine can

charge five counts, can charge five counts of possession with intent to distribute, charge which is a philly but they can also supercharge the misdemeanor possession even though they may have evidence for the philly, they can, i think will charge of misdemeanor. or they can just to spit it -- dismissive of the undercard to charge at all. they do not have to explain those decisions to a judge or anyone else. it's made behind closed doors. the chief prosecutor is the only person who is in charge of that. that's a tremendous amount of power if you think about it. if one kid comes in and he sees one kid and says i remember when i was back in college i used sell a little dope and youthful indiscretion and i turned out all right. that kid, this did over looks like a kid who looks a certain way, reminds me of me when i was young. he's got a future and i don't

want to ruin the future with a criminal record so i'm going to let this slide. but another kid comes in looking very different from a very different neighborhood, right? and he's automatically come maybe he will charge them with a felony. that's a tremendous amount of power. the thing about is it's complicated because i'm not say that prosecutor is saying that's a rich white kid and i'm going to them break. that's a poor black kid, i'm not. they may not even be consciously thinking that way and that's when this thing called implicit bias comes in. these unconscious feelings and views that we all come everyone of us in this room of all races and ginger, the unconscious views that we all have based on negative stereotypes that we pick up in society around us in media network, could be based on race or gender or skin color or

hair or body size. we are not even aware we have the spices. it's the thing that makes some people with a black man walks on elevator, they don't even realize the body is moving over to the corner, right? and not just white folks, by the way, right? i don't know if anybody remembers reverend jackson, don't be mad at me, years ago when reverend jackson came outcome is walking down the street in washington, d.c., and he said he looked behind in and was relieved to see that it was a white man. reverend jackson who i used to work for and unloved, but my point is that all of us carry these implicit -- the problem is that when people have tremendous power in the criminal justice system and they're making decisions that are impacted by that implicit bias, that's a dangerous thing. because you have someone's life and liberty in your hands and you are being influenced by your

unconscious views, you can you realize what you're doing, but yet it's happening. the fact that it is unintentional doesn't mean it's okay. the fact that it's unintentional doesn't mean that the result is going to be different. it's still wrong if so it is treated unfairly. if these two young men similarly situated both of them charge with the same thing, maybe neither one of them had a record, that's one of things prosecutors take into account, maybe the black kid did have an arrest record but guess what, none of this cases actually, he wasn't convicted. maybe they were the result of racial profiling and it wasn't a case. there's all kinds of complicated things they go into the charge and decision same thing with plea-bargaining. if you are watched that show, the committee minority shows i guess -- [laughing] eight or nine but if you watch many of the law and order shows you think all of these trials are going on?

not so in the criminal justice is. just not a lot of trials going on. is a lot of guilty pleas going on. 95% of all criminal cases are resolved by way of the guilty plea. 95%. only 5% of criminal cases actually go to trial with the jury and all that. and that process, the plea-bargaining process is again totally controlled by prosecutors pixel how does it work? prosecutes this okay, i'm going to charge you with five counts of burglary. that's the other thing, this is phenomenon of overcharging. they may not even be sure they can prove all of those are good reason beyond a reasonable doubt that they sure can charge it because all they have to do to charge it is to show probable cause like more likely not. so that pile on all these charges and it gives him an advantage at the plea-bargaining stage. you are facing, let's make it harder case. let's say five mandatory minimum charges, you're looking at 50

years on the bottom meaning like if you're convicted after trial you will be, you have to serve 50 years for you see the light of day. tell you what, says the prosecutor, i'll make you a deal. i will allow you to plead to one of these mandatory census and i would just dismiss the other four. sound like a good deal, right? you can see how even an innocent person with plead guilty because going to try is risky business. .. compelled to feel like they should play guilty and somany

people did, 95 percent .i don't want to say plea-bargaining is a bad thing but if it were fair, it would be fine. a lot of times the plea office are made by the prosecutors and, to the defense attorney and say i'll tell you what, i really like that bill but it expires at 5:00 and you need to take the plea or it's off the table. and they say wait a minute, i have a duty to investigate these charges, to find out whether my client has a defense. how can i advise my client to do this and i don't even know and to bad, that's not illegal in our criminal justice system. that's not the way justice is supposed to work but it goes on every day in courtrooms across the country. where a defense attorney is going to the client saying

look, i don't know, you might have a defense but they're making this offer and the decision is up to the client. that's not the way justice is supposed to work. if the plea bargaining process work in a way that the prosecutor says here's my file: here's all the evidence i have against you, here's everything i know about the case and i'm going to give you time to investigate and you let me know whether you want to take the plea, that happens sometimes, i'm not saying all prosecutors act that way but many of them do. that is a system that we have versus where there's a lot of pressure on everybody to move the case along. judges loveplease, that's part of their agenda . judges love please because plea is only take a few minutes. trial take sometimes days and they've got to move that calendar. but there's a human being behind all that. so you can see why i think prosecutors are the most

powerful individuals in the criminal justice system and i could go on and on but in the interest of time i want. i will say this one more thing about prosecutors. the problem is, and i talked to some of the prosecutors who say look, i say to them you guys make these decisions behind closed doors, you're not accountable to the public, people don't know what you're doing what you're causing maybe not intentionally but you are and they will say look, if my constituents don't like it, they can vote me out. and i say well, somebody said that, in theory, right? we live in a democracy. and we hold those accountable to whom we grant power and these prosecutors are the most powerful. democracy is all about transparency and there is no transparency in the prosecution function when it comes to charging and plea-bargaining. those decisions as i said are made behind closed doors so most state and local prosecutors and i should say there are federal

prosecutors, us attorneys over in the federal district, and then there are state and local prosecutors. only about 10 percent of all criminal cases are handled on the federal level, only 10 percent. 90 percent of our all criminal cases are handled on the state and local level so there are thousands of state attorneys, district attorneys, called different things in different jurisdictions and there are only five jurisdictions, district of columbia do not have elected prosecutors, they have another process but all the rest of them are elected, they run for office. and it's a very imperfect system of accountability. because it is, if you're on that chapter you will read about how many prosecutors, they serve for decades, run of those, people go to the ballot box and in an election year and sometimes there's only one name is people don't challenge them and when they

tried to challenge an incumbent, it's almost impossible to unseat them and when they run for office, they're not talking about the stuff i'm talking about today. they're not saying to their constituents, they're not saying here are my plea-bargaining policies and here's what i'm doing about racial disparities in the criminal justice, i don't know if you've heard any das run on that. in the past, and still so in most jurisdictions, they run on i'm tough on crime and if you have opponents, they will sayi'm tougher on crime. >> and they don't really talk about what they do . they it's really important decisions they are making behind closed doors so that's why it's so important that we educate ourselves so we can ask the hard questions and if you would go to a forum on by a prosecutor and raise your hand and say what is your charging and plea-bargaining policy they will say right there, i urge you to do that. you should ask that question. but i say to you it's really important to pay

attention toyour district attorney . it's important for good people who care about justice in the criminal justice system to run for office and i'm happy to say a number of prosecutors were challenged around the country and were unseated, not that many but some of them and a lot of attention has been paid in chicago, aramis, and in orlando florida and i could go on and on so there is a movement of people paying more attention to prosecutors and what they do. and i'm happy to hear that. i think it's really important that we pay attention to that. and i just want to close with this and open it up for questions. the united states criminal justice system is the largest in the world and at the end of 2011 approximately 7 million individuals were under some form of and correctional control in the

united states including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state or local prisons. the united states has the highest incarceration rate in the world. dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation. racial minorities are more likely than white americans to be arrested, once arrested they are more likely to be convicted, once convicted they are more likely to face the system. african-american males are six times more likely to be incarceratedthan white males, in similarly situated white counterparts and 2.5 times more likely . if the current trends continue, one of every three black american males born today can expect to go through in his lifetime. one of every six latino males as compared to one of every 17 white males. so we have a problem in this country. >> it's not a badge of honor

to be number one in incarceration. it's a badge of shame. why is it that we are so different from every other country, and why do we have this college. >> as i tried to explain, it's complicated.there are a lot of complex reasons why but at the end of the day it's an unjust andunfair system and we all have to fight to change it. so thank you for hearing me out and i'd be happy to take questions . [applause] >> if you will come to the microphone, [inaudible]

>> i've often found the saddest picture i've seen during the civil rights movement and i was in the civil rights movement is men carrying signs saying i am a man. i believe that in police involved shootings, the person is not seen as human and there's this fear that they are running away, running without 11. >> it's their responsibility is tochange that perception, it's not a trade-in. it's not a culture of police issue. what , what to me is so essential that if you use someone who uses and has as has happened in our state, someone who's running and went on to other people, it's so painful to see that and then you look at how dylan ruth was treated, whose job is it, whose responsibility is it. if you see this person

unharmed or not, this african-american male is a human being and deserves respect. >> thank you so much for that. >> very insightful. question and a statement. and what you said, we knew this already. what you said is in a lot of the efforts. >>. >> yeah, it's really scary and sad and depressing that the black men and boys, in very existence, they can be doing nothing. standing on the street corner talking . >> just being, just living. create suspicion in the minds of so many. they see blacks and ac criminals or not human. you just said that and that's so true. and several of the chapters, the chapter on science, the chapter by arisa brown, on black boys, they these studies that are quite shocking. they show particularly police

officers that tried to put gauge whether they have this implicit bias when they talk about the force or show them these images . of black boys and they repeatedly over and over estimate the age and size of black boys. always seeing them as older and larger than they really are. just the bias immediately, that's what they're seeing. some of the police studies that were done in the chapter about implicit bias where they would ask the police officer, show some of these images quickly and ask them to respond what should they shoot or not shoot. they would see weapons in the hands of unarmed black men and not see them in the hands of white men who were armed. >> because of this implicit bias.

the studies show, so it's an incredible burden to put on a black boy or man but that goes on to say, everybody, a lot of people have given their sons or daughters the talk, don't talk back to police officers, put your hands on the floor. the thing that very maddening and infuriating is we saw in a lot of these videos, i believe it was the philndo castile case, they weren't doing anything wrong so telling folks state is not going to save you. what can we do about it? lastly, some of our prosecutors think that's a big part of it because there is something called implicit bias training. a lot of people here about

diversity training and i get it, a lot of the training is like , not really. but there is really good training around implicit bias. that's why russell brown on making implicit bias explicit because what the studies show is when you make people aware of their implicit biases, that's the first in getting rid of it. so there's actually very good implicit bias training out here, the few people that are doing it, i went to sort of a conference on this in washington dc where they brought together many different people in the criminal justice system, probation judges and the woman who was doing the training, there was specific training to try to root out, they had a judge, several judges who weregiving instructions to jurors about implicit bias and making them aware . i do think training is a big part of it. at least anyway, i will stop there. >>. >>.

>> is it on? >> can you hear me? >> i am an elderly white woman and i thought i didn't have any fire but i read this book and i found that i have implicit inherited bias from slavery. and when i grew up i think we have implicit bias from when we didn't even think of a black person as a full person , we saw them as a half person. or, and i think that a lot of

people glanced over the fact that we might be biased and i had to look straight at it. and it was uncomfortable. and i'm not sad that yet. >> that i'm not a police officer. >> and i, you know. i believe in mail that police officers and especially our prosecutors we have now, i hope he's not here. [laughter] >> he probably is here. are very guilty of bias.

>> thank you, i appreciate the comments, i do. thank you. i really appreciate that. i appreciate that you are here, i appreciate that you are reading the book and because what i said was, we all have implicit bias. thank you so much. yes. >> thank you miss davis for coming out and i appreciate the racial makeup of the audience. any questions, transporting an off-duty black officer to the airport and this issue came up. he told me my number one priority was to get out of thesituation alive. he said i'm not going to win , that cop is still mad. you want to fight, fight in the courthouse and usually your battle i wouldhave it courthouse . at least i'm alive to fight. and the second and the question is, this disparity in our courtroom, would you

call it a conspiracy? is that a good word for it? >> thank you for the comment and i will say this about the comments, the number one priority to get out of the situation alive, i think what we've got to do is train our police officers that you can get out of the situation alive without killing an unarmed person. [applause] none of these black men or boars boys had a weapon and philando castile, he said i had it legally, here it is, i'm not reaching for it, my hands are out here and he killed him anyway. so yeah, police officers, we need police officers to protect us and we get that but they don't have to kill people to stay alive, that's the main point. i don't think it's a conspiracy because i think that most of it, maybe not all of it, some of it is intentional and, i think some

of it is intentional but not all of it. i'll give an example of intent. there was a situation in new york city, floyd versus new york city. phenomenal case, not many people know about it but be center for constitutional rights sued the new york police department because they were engaged in systematic, unconstitutional behavior. they were stopping and frisking and searching illegally black men and boys. and they were doing it intentionally because they had police officers on the inside wired themselves and caught police chiefs telling them to go and stop ballistics so it was incredible. without getting into the details, my point is not all of it is unintentional but i think a lot of it is implicit bias. that doesn't make it right, that doesn't excuse it.

this is an injustice, what we've got to do is figure out how to get to those biases, get rid of them, retrain people and get rid of the people who refuse to do the job right and it's really hard . it's really hard. >> it is hard to find police officers, they have powerful unions and interestingly enough, some ofyou may have seen , trump made that statement encouraging police officers to engage in police brutality which was outrageous. i don't know why i continue to be shot by anything he does but i was shocked that someone who claims to be the president of the united states would say to the police, be rough. and you have a lot of this heads of these police organizations who will say actually, no. that's wrong. police unions, they have not spoken against them. i think we are over here now. >> there's a big difference between a white person and a racist .

a racist cannot be trained. they are deep in their racism. died in the wall. they will never change, they have no intention of changing so that's what you are working with. the ones who are ordinary white police officers who really, they do have implicit bias and they are willing to work with that, it takes a willingness. and they can be trained to do better. it's never going to be eliminated, the racism is there and even in the ones that we are talking about can be trained. they are racist as well. they are with the blue eyed, brown eyed, eliot ness and he essentially, some of you are familiar with that. she essentially said that america is a racist country. we might as well face it off. that's what it is.

>> you did a very excellent job of tracing from 400 years ago a pattern of behavior. we've had plenty of opportunity to address it but the malice is there. >> the intention to not address it is not to anyone's advantage and you have power to address it. it's no incentive. it's not going to be addressed. there have been brilliant minds who have studied this area there is no hope and so i know people don't like that. that is picture and that's the way it is. and also, >> it's also basically, that it. if you look at all the data and you also keep looking at all the studies, you look at longevity of what racism has been, there is no cure for it. and i think that maybe people can unite and try to address it but to get a, the racism

is here. it's been here, it's part of the character of america. it will never go away and we know it. but they want to be honest, then you can address it but if you want to just keep on playing games,, and one other thing, sounds like a conspiracy? >> but when you follow statistics, the data, that the devastation has been long-term. and systemic. it's not just the law enforcement. the justice system was very foul and in just. it's america. this is what america is known for outside the borders because this is what america is. thank you for your comments. i will say this, i believe that some can say i disagree with others, i do have to add though because i have a style

and an experience here i happen to know. >> and there are some racist people who will never change but there are some who will change either because they get it or because they are made to change. >> so you know, some people decided doing what desegregation, they were going to go through their let their kids go to school. but guess what, they were made to do that because the law require them to do it so if people who don't want to behave or people who are acting unconstitutionally or who are acting racist, you can't be in a position of power is my point. so what i think is that racism is always going to be, it's always going to be there but i also think that some people do change and i don't think that every person is a racist. i have to believe that. i also have to believe in the

change element again because it's face it people, there is no hope, i'm not going to say that a little black brown boys and girls that there's no hope because what does that do to them? i think we have to be excited for it. i think there are good minded people out here. >> i've got to believe it. >>. >> professor davis, thanks so much for coming down, i appreciate you. i'm wondering if when you were writing and publishing this book if you intended to or have had any interaction with law enforcement after the publication of the book, i don't know if you saw any of that out. or has it come your way unintentionally, i'm curious about the unintended audience of this book and if there's been dialogue there? >> this is only my second big reason so we will see. but i have had interactions with a lot of prosecutors, i talked to and talk about and so on. >> and police officers

because there are some police officers that are noble, national organization of black law enforcement officers and i've known some of the leaders of their organization who agree with everything i'm saying. so i think there are some folks out there who know that there's a problem and it needs to be changed, there are not enough of them so it would be interesting to see. so far i haven't gotten any, you all are a friendly audience and i appreciate that. >> also, my boss is here. but i do want to make sure that i asked the next question. [inaudible] >> thanks doctor cummings and i appreciate all you being here, you've done a great job stating the problem. i really think that we particularly talked about implicit bias, and i'm interested in looking at the

solutions and i agree with you also, i'm not about giving up hope. i do think things can change, things will always change. i'm an artist, i'm a working artist and one of the things i'm interested in and i'm dealing with right now is that same issue. i'm also a father and grandfather of young black men. >> and so when i think about the implicit bias and i have a question i ask is that where does it come from, one of the things that i think of, that maybe many areas that comes from, but subliminal messaging. i think that's important. we can go back to looking at birth of a nation, you can look at those cartoons and caricatures and all of the sambo imagery that was created. and not just racism but black people as well. so today, it's a byproduct of all that.>> so and a way in which the change that implicit bias in my mind. >> is what can we do, we're

looking at filmmakers, entertainers, dancers, performers, poetry, etc. so the question i have that to get to you is what role you see the artist, any artist bringing about positive social change? >> you answer the question in a tremendous level. >> art, you know, film, theater, visual art, it's so powerful and so important but trying to think of journalism, there's so many examples of that. >> i think it plays an incredible point, in the arts movement of people emotionally, you mentioned subliminal messaging and the -ones are there. no question that there's, people keep making art. >>. >> i do have a question but i also want to make this a quick comments, i'm sorry. >> i do want to say that i hope that everybody does continue to have hope because i used to be a racist, i

believe in ., i perpetuated the myth of the welfare clean queen and they made me realize these things are absolutely false and i feel like i understand that it's sometimes really hard to have hope, that the onus should be on black people anymore to stay say stop killing us. i feel like we should have a louder voice and saying this has to stop as we spend enough time being biased and racist as well. so please don't give up hope. we thank you. >> my question is that during george's black weekend we had a bill introduced in the house, it was 8116 and the purpose of the bill was to expand the number of times that juveniles could be arduous, that were sent to superior court and i found it really upsetting because reading into it i found a crime was actually armed robbery and i don't know of

anybody else but if i was or armed robbery, i wouldn't want to be a 15-year-old going to an adult prison. >> but i'm really curious if you know about where there were, there's a difference in the rate of recidivism versus when a juvenile is tried as an adult versus when they are sent to the juvenile justice system and are you there any programs in place to reduce the rate of recidivism in juvenile justice systems? >> great question. first of all, let me say something about those bills. i'm not been with the details of it but the last thing we need is to create more crimes. united states has so many, we criminalize everything. >> everything. and sometimes there are six or seven crimes that you can be charged with one same. and a lot of times the titles of these crimes are scarier than some crimes.you mentioned armed robbery.>> an armed robber could be juvenile or at a juvenile, could be a group of kids,

because juveniles are, i used to represent kids and a lot of times they don't think about i'm going to go rob somebody.they could be walking down the street so one of them, they all start running and the other one is with them. they start running also. all of them are going to be charged, with robbery. they're impulsive, they don't think and an armed robbery doesn't necessarily mean a gun. i've seen prosecutors who charge people with assault with a dangerous weapon for kicking someone with a shoe on and i had to start with one of my clients in washington dc. assault with a dangerous weapon, shod foot. you know what a shot is? it's a foot with issue on and that was the weapon. you're laughing but it's true. i also remember the gino six cases. one of those kids was charged

with assault with a dangerous weapon and the weapon was issue. so it gives you an example how these crimes, sure, if i'm going to put points a gun at somebody as a dangerous crime but not every armed robbery is that. but you get to the point where recidivism, i would say recidivism is a long line. there's no question but that you take a child in your adult system, they are not going to be rehabilitated. they are going to be made worse. it's not going to help them, it's not going to help society because they are going to get out at some point and when they get out is going to be worse than when they get in. they are there are not going to be rehabilitated programs for juveniles, period. a lot of adults, so we're talking about fixing people and just to be clear, i know there areserious crimes out there where some people are

going to have to be locked up . murders and rapes and so on. but to be clear, the majority of votes are locked up for nonviolent offenses and the majority of people are not locked up for those offenses. the offenses that are filling our nation's jails are juveniles and adults are not those crimes. so that's what we need to look at. they're also looking out for juveniles in the interest of time but they're not in adult prisons and not even in some juvenile facilities. >> thank you, yes. >> i appreciate your first book, courage because that's what it takes. this should be a dialogue because every prosecutor in georgia is elected and thank you and your chapter for mentioning some of the people that we've fought against here.

not because we hated them but because they didn't do the correct things in the justice system. i was one of seven people in the original citizens review commissionand we didn't have independence , there are no more citizens review commissions in georgia, the site of a horrific record of justice here. but what i wanted to mention is as the seven of us, five were attorneys. >> and i, one other person were the only ones demanding that the police chief come to answer a few questions about training. but because we did not have independence. >> politicians pick the ones we had. but i came on because my neighborhood credit union. >> but i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about the way these things work. we give us some hints in order not just to vote but to getindependence for these because otherwise . >> i think this is they reveal police behavior or life. >> and regis police behavior and it came about because

they shot a black woman named catherine johnson, you might be familiar. 53 times and planted pot on her. the only reason we know about that is because the informants, joked out of a bond was ready to print of his own life but he kept telling the cop who did go to jail for a short time that that one didn't sell don't. they crack down the door and killed her. so out of that, the commission, please give us some advice, some kind of independence but the vote is the first one because all howard is making a difficult decision. >> thank you. i don't have the answer for you. i do appreciate what you are saying because a lot of these civilians review boards are or are what they are called, they don't have the power to do anything and they don't have the independence and all i can say is that your elected officials, you have

to, that's why democracy is ugly. particular these days. it's very ugly and it's hard and it's difficult. but that's the only thing we can do is speak and make our voices heard, look at our officials and let people know what we want. that's about the only way to do it, it's a hard way of going about it but it's the only way. >>. >> thank you for being here ms. davis, i appreciate that. the question i have is about the jury system. in these police killings have gone to trial, the jury's have not convicted them. i can understand that. that baffles me. >> is it implicit bias or is it something else involved? >> i wanted to answer that question so thank you for asking it. that is something i've been thinking so much about i can't really figure it out

either but i'm trying so after some of these cases, walter scott who was running away with his hands in the air, got shot in the back like an animal, we saw that with our own eyes because it was videotaped. we saw eric garner being choked to death with our own eyes. when you see this with your own eyes and you see a murder , i know what a murder is when i see one, those were murders. and then to have in the case of eric garner not even being charged and in the case of walter scott where the jury came back home jury, in the case of a shelby ., where two cameras overshoot down paris with his hands in the air, not guilty. so in that, they question some of the jurors after that and i remember some of the jurors in several of these cases say we were so sad because no one wins here. we didn't have a choice cause the law required us to find a

person guilty and i'm thinking no, they didn't understand because here's the deal. it is true that the law favors police officers. the supreme court in a series of cases starting with kc versus garner, scott versus harris, i won't go into detail but basically there's this real loose reasonable standard that the supreme court has set in like a reasonable for the police officers to believe that there is danger for someone else is in danger. they can use deadly force. and they allowed police officers to use deadly force in a much wider range of circumstances than uni because you and i as ordinary citizens, we have what's called self-defense. where is really very clear, you have to be in imminent danger or serious bodily injury or death to use deadly force. what does that mean? imminent means somebody's got to be coming at you with a weapon before you can legally kill that person.

the law says you don't have to give your life for another person. >> there is no imminent requirement for this law because they don't have to be in imminent danger. it doesn't have to be serious bodily injury, it's just a loose safety standard, it doesn't have to be imminent. the law gives them permission but here's the thing. >> when those police officers testified in the few trials does remember most of these didn't go to trial because most of them were charged but in the few that went to trial where there was courts, you heard these roots saying this. what happened is i think that when the police officer got on and said i believe that i was about to be killed. even though the jury saw in some instances videotaped where clearly the person wasn't coming out then, clearly there were no, it didn't seem reasonable to me that they were, that they were about to be killed, why would you think you're about

to be killed when the person had their hands up? there was no weapon so the jury is required to believe testimony is not believable. so that judges tell all jurors in all cases, you are the judge with the credibility of the witness so the witness is not credible or saying something that's not believable, you can reject it. sometimes police officers do but it appears that there believing you. >> or it's a police officer who talk about implicit bias, even though person is not harmed or saying i think i'm in danger. a juror could say no, that's not reasonable. ask what you did was at a minimum reckless. and your guilty, they could've said that so the law doesn't require them to do that. >> i think battery, i don't know what's going on there but it's a combination of a lot and i think there's a misunderstanding of what the job is but again, we don't see that going to trial. and thank you. >> is obligated. >>.

>> in 2006 the fbi for just produce a report, you can see it online but it's mostly redacted that shows that there was a heavy white supremacist kkk presence within the police force. that report made specifically republicans, they were just know, we can't have this so the report was shelved. they took another bite at the apple, the fbi in 2009 did the department of homeland security under janet napolitano, they say okay, we have this problem because we have approximately 18,000 police forces around the country. >> we have a problem with white supremacist infiltrating our police department. we need to address this. again, the republicans ,

janet napolitano decided to be spineless and rejected the report out of hand. >> and they were shelled again and there's nothing being addressed to with this issue. i understand implicit bias but we also have to talk about the presence of white supremacist. one person was accosted or shot by police officers who was wearing a kkk t-shirt underneath his uniform. so i understand implicit bias but then there's not implicit racism, this is explicit racism. when are we going to deal with this? >> i agree. i talked with everything that you said, there was a case of an officer in washington dc was found wearing one of those t-shirts under his uniform as well. it's not all implicit bias and i appreciate you pointing that out. and when it's explicit like that, there is no excuse. the law is not very helpful in terms of helping us get

rid of implicit bias because as cheryl and i said in the chapter, there's a requirement this constitutional requirement of showing discrimination beforehand. there's no remedy into this. but there are legal remedies for explicit clear racism. >> the question is the charges have to be brought. basically people need to be fired if it's that situation. i agree with you entirely. >> the answer to part of my question while i'm standing here, i'm in law enforcement. we are trained in graham versus connor and i was going to ask you to elaborate because that standard is what they are using to justify their use of force and can youanswer part of it already but if you would give them the background because when i was studying this case , i wasappalled. >> you're talking about the case of robin . >> doctor of russo, so he was diabetic and he thought he

robbed a convenience store and he did nothing. basically he was beat up and attack and that's how the case became to the supreme court. >> you just gave the facts basically but that's one of the cases where scott b harris is another case that involved police officers renting a car, this case is having a diabetic shock situation, he ran into a 7-eleven and got into an altercation with the police and they beat him up. he bought a claim in the supreme court said it was okay because the police officers acted reasonably even though he was not doing that. scott versus harris, this person was a car. it was a high-speed chase, he should not have been speeding but the police officers came up behind him and ran his car repeatedly, crushing him and turning him into a quadriplegic because they decided they had to stop the car because he was speeding and the supreme court said that was reasonable because

he could have hurt some other people when he was speeding so it was fine for the police officer to do that even though it left him injured so that the law we are dealing with. if the law is bad for us. >> we keep talking in circles about bad policy. can we here? >> move closer, go ahead. >> we talk about bad policy in this country and shallow though it may be, from time to time that high morality point, we've tried to legislate that morality. going back to the late civil rights act of the 1960s and even recently as with the marriage for our gay brothers and sisters but at this point for black and brown bodies, what are our policy options? what is it that we should be articulating to legislators that we want specifically because we can say all day long, don't shoot me and we

can say all day long you are only prosecuting me but what are our policy options? what is the language? >> i guess it depends on which issue you are talking about. are you talking about police use of deadly force or suppressing? >> i guess it's more of a broad question, maybe you can help me narrow it down. i'm thinking about talking over and over again about the lack of prosecution of officers and how consistent it is for black and brown people to be convicted at a higher rate and have longer sentences at a higher rate. what is the language that we should be using to our legislators because we can stand in the street all day long and say don't shoot and we can stand in the street all day long and say i'm going to jail more frequently and longer but that's not a solution. >> a couple of things, thank you for your question. i can't give you specific

legislative language right now, it depends on the bill and all those things. the last thing you said is important, lack lies matter movement is so important. people my age are like oh, no. we need folks in the streets marching because if you think for one minute that the laws and politics are going to be passed in the legislator without people out in the streets, you are deluding yourself. we need both. it's not either/or. we don't need people from the black lines movement matter in lawyers and legend legislators that we are important and we don't need to be folks telling people marching, we know it's always taken all of that and it will continue to take all of that. where i get to is this. i think we need to do law but the bottom line is that it depends on the issue and the language you use and i can talk to you about depending on your issue but it also is important even when you've

got good laws, if you've got bad people implementing the laws, it really doesn't matter. so what i'm focusing on now is to the prosecutors, we're going to get the brand bad prosecutors out, we got to get good progressive people in. if you don't know who kim fox is, look her up. she is the new da in chicago. she unseated anita alvarez who was the prosecutor when blood clotmacdonald, another of these young boys who was killed in chicago , alvarez had a videotape that she sat on that showed that police officer killed look long macdonald and she wouldn't release it. she said i'm working with the fbi, we can't release it. a judge ordered her to release it and lo and behold, it showed that top murdered her and all of a sudden they started charging the cop kim fox came in and ran against her and ran her out . and it's not just about

police killings, kim fox has been out implementing policies and practice that are reducing racial disparity. she just issued a policy that spoke to people locked up on money bonds in chicago for getting them released, she's a prosecutor but she's doing it because she's got a progressive mindset. aramis ayala in orlando said i'm not bringing the deputy in these cases because of the death penalty is racist, i'm not doing it. of course, governor rick scott then removed her from all the cases in her jurisdiction where the death penalty is there but now she's suing the governor. it's messy but the point is we've got to get good progressive people in positions where they can implement the policies because if you don't have those folks in there, it doesn't matter what the laws are. do we have time for the signing?

>> if you are in line and you can ask the fastest question you get to ask, ask it in the episode. >> how are you doing, man. i'm 24 years old and i mentor ayounger teenager , black boys. >> i'm 24 years old and i mentor a group of young black teenage boys and girls. and they become desensitized to the videos of police brutality. and i just get tired and weary of this talking to them , trying to teach them different ways of how to replace the system of white supremacy with a system of justice so there are are there any ways that you could tell me that i could tell them how they could grow up and replace the system. >> replace it with justice. >> when i say to you is keep doing what you are doing. because a lot of times young people in particular, you're making a difference. >> frankie or, you may get discouraged because your

hearing from kids saying things but they're getting it because you are there you are mentoring them and it's making a difference even though you don't realize it. so i'm just telling you to keep doing it. >> maybe we can take maybe a couple more, we're not going to be able to get everybody. let me take one more because i think we are losing people. >> my question is very similar to his because i felt established a black student union within my school. and one thing that constantly came up was that you considered the instead of innocent and you are never considered innocent until proven guilty and there's a lot of very interested young people looking to change the system but they don't know how so for people going into college, or choosing their new career path, what should be the most necessary part for them, what is the field that needs the most adjustment, where are the mind needed themost. >> well say , when i say in

my law students when they come in, they say i want to do something in criminal justice but i don't know whether i want to be a defense attorney or a prosecutor and when i say to them is everybody thinks i want everybody to be a public defender and we need more public defenders but we also need good prosecutors so tell me what your gut is. if you find yourself, i want to be a defender, don't be the best defender you can be to help those people. if you want to be a prosecutor, read my book arbitrary justice so you can figure out how. be a progressive prosecutor, use that power to do good and not just criminal justice, there are so many opportunities out there for young people and organizations out there that are doing positive progressive things. >> whatever it is, they are interested in, whether it's art as someone mentioned, whether this policy, whether it's history, whether it's technology, go and do what's in their heart to do and all of those things can be used to promote social justice. all of it. >> whatever they're

interested in, be the best they can be and there are avenues out there, organizations out there that can help you promote justice. >> i would encourage you to do that. thank you all very much. [applause] >> come this way. >> luckily what can we learn when we look at these? >> if you remember in the 2008 presidential election all the way back then, mike obama was elected president. he defeated john kane and there was a big question