booktv.org. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening. welcome to the atlanta history center. my name is kate whitman, and i'm the vp of public programs. there's a little weird feedback thing, but i think it's good now. we are missing a few people, so

they will start to fill in, and please be nice and show them where there are seats available. tonight is an elson lecture, and we thank our sponsor, ambassador and mrs. edward elson, for supporting this program. tonight angela j. davis -- just to be really clear, this is angela j. davis for anyone who is confused, okay? [laughter] she's going to be talking, she's the editor of "policing the black man: arrests, prosecution and imprisonment," which she will be discussing this evening. she is, throughout her career as a lawyer, author and professor, angela j. davis has dedicated her efforts to studying and bettering the criminal justice system in america, particularly as it relates to prosecutional power and racism within the system. tonight's program is being broadcast for c-span, so this will probably show up in about a week. but that does mean that if you have a question, you should go to the microphone to ask it. and i forgot to say that, so now

i'm going to go back to her bio, but i wanted to make sure that i got that in. she, 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 won the pauline moore award. currently, she's professor of law at washington college of law at american university. she is editor of "policing the black man." please join me in welcoming angela j. davis to the atlanta history center. [applause] >> thank you, kate. and i want to thank the atlanta history center for having me this evening, and i 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. so 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 a half years ago about doing a collection of essays that would explore and contextualize the many 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 no issue more 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 me 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. and i was really fortunate that so many of them said yes. so i really want to just take this opportunity to thank them, the many authors that contributed to this project. and i'm going to tell you a little bit about them and about the essays this evening. but the first thing i want to do is read a brief excerpt from the book's introduction that i 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 terence crutcher are just some of the names on a long list of unarmed black boys and men who were killed by police officers in recent years. although black men have been the victims of violence at the hands of the state since the time of slavery, technology and social media now permit us to literally bear witness to many of these killings repeated hi. repeatedly. millions of people have watched the video of a police officer choking eric garner to death as he struggled for air. similarly, millions have watched the video of a police officer shooting walter scott in the back as he ran for his life. who can ever forget the grainy footage of tamir rice, the 12-year-old boy who was shot by a police officer while he played alone with a toy gun in a park near his home.

two videos, one from a police helicopter and another from a police dashboard camera, show terence crutcher walking away from police officers with his hands raised high in the air just before he was shot and killed. these images have evoked feelings of fear, sadness and outrage and serve as a 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 these men and boys have been convicted of a single crime. from the arrival of the first -- in jamestown in 1619 to the present day, black boys and men have been unlawfully killed by those who were sworn to uphold the law and by vigilantes who took the law into their own hands. the national museum of african-american history and culture which owned its doors on september 24th, 2016, includes

exhibits that tell the story of many of these killings. yet these killings are not just a part of african-american history. they have continued well into the 21st century, almost 400 years 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. 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 serve as markers on the civil rights movement timeline as so many other 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 men in the 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 crime watch group, reported to the police that martin looked suspicious and that he looked like he was, quote, up to no good or on drugs or something, unquote. ignoring the dispatcher's 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's house 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 martin's murder. a jury ultimately acquitted him. the killing of trayvon martin, the initial failure of the prosecutor to charge zimmerman with a crime and zimmerman's

ultimate acquittal captured the attention of the nation. president obama even weighed in stating, quote: trayvon martin could have been me 35 years ago, unquote. martin's killing also inspired the phrase black lives matter. the phrase trended on twitter and all forms of social media and was displayed on posters carried in protest after martin's killing and after every killing of a black man or woman by a police officer from that day forward. black lives matter ultimately became a social justice movement with chapters throughout the united states and canada. many unarmed black men and boys have been killed since trayvon martin's tragic death five years ago. many of the killings to occurred after police officers arguably engaged in racial profiling, stopping and harassing 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 officers claimed they had, 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 killings of 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, heavily and harshly at every step of the criminal process. in fact, black men are policed and treated worse than their 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 stop, search and arrest black men far more

frequently than white men engaged in the same behavior. prosecutors charge black men more frequently and with more serious crimes than white men who engaging in the same behavior. and there are disproportionate numbers of black men in the nation's prisons and jails. criminal defendants, regardless of their race, are punished less harshly when their 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. now, many people have asked why black men, why are you focusing on black men? aren't there other people in the criminal justice system who are treated not well or treated poorly? and the answer to that is, yes. so how would i answer that question? black men are not the only people of color to be treated worse than their similarly-situated white counterparts at every step of the criminal process.

black women, latina women, latino men, native americans and other people of color also experience violence at the hands of the state and discriminatory treatment in the criminal justice system, as do people who are gay, lesbian and/or transgerund. this book focused on -- transgender. this book's focus in no way trivializes the experiences of all people who face these harms. while acknowledging that other groups have been and continue to be oppressed and discriminated against, this book focuses on black men. in many ways, the experience of black men 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 a arrested at school in the united states and referred to the juvenile justice system are black and hispanic. and while black students represent only 16% of student enrollment, they represent 27% of students dealt with by law enforcement. black male students alone make up 18% of all referrals and arrests. black men are disproportion nately arrested. african-americans are 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 kill or injured during a police encounter. while more whites are killed by law enforcement than 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%. and by the end of 2015, black men constituted 34% of the american prison population. in 2015 5,165 in 100,000 black men ages 25-29 were imprisoned as compared to 2,165 hispanic men and 921 white men of the same age. remarkably, the number of black men in prison or jail on probation or on parole by the end of 2009 roughly equaled the number enslaved in 1850.

one in three black men borning in 2001, one in three, can expect to be incarcerated in his lifetime. blacks are also disproportionately sentenced the death. as of 2014, the national death row population was approximately 42% black. the overall black 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 men and boys at every step of the criminal process is explored in depth in this book. as the essays make 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 and in some instances personally experienced the phenomenon about which they write.

so in their essays, they examine and explain the policing of black men. i want to tell you a little bit about the essays, and then i want to talk about my own essay, my own contribution to the book which is about the prosecution of black men and talk to you about why i think that issue is important. so just briefly i'll tell you the titles and, hopefully, they will inspire you to want to pick up book and read it. the first essay is called "a presumption of guilt: the legacy of america's history of injustice." and it was written by brian stephenson. the second is by mark mower, the held of the sentencing project in -- the head of the sentencing project in d.c. i heard some of you comment, so you know who brian is. remarkable hero of mine who runs the equal justice initiative. the third essay is called "boys to men: the role of policing and the socialization of black boys"

written by professor kristin henning of georgetown. and this, i will tell you all, this essay almost didn't make it to the book because i was so focused on black men, and after talking to kris who's one of the nation's top leading experts on the juvenile justice system, i realized, wow, of course we have to talk about black boys, and that chapter is remarkable because actually black boys are treated worse in the system than black men. so that essay is pretty revealing. the next one is called "racial profiling: the law, the policy and the practice," written by professor renee mcdonald hutch especially of the university of -- hutchens of maryland. it explains that. the next chapter is "black men and the police: making implicit bias explicit." i know many of you may have heard about implicit bias. it's a theme that goes through all of these essays, and it's at the root of so many of these killings, and i'll talk a bit about that tonight. it was written by professor katherine russell brown,

university of florida. the next chapter's called "policing: a model for the 2 isst century," by professors tracy mears and tom tyler. professor mears served on president obama's task force on policing in the 21st century. the next chapter is my own chapter, it's called "the prosecution of black men. " i'm going to talk about that a little bit tonight. then the grand jury and police violence against black men by professor roger fairfax. a lot of people were introduced to the grand jury after ferguson when they realized that the police officer wouldn't be indicted, so professor fairfax explains the whole history of the grand jury and reveals some things that will probably be very surprising to many of you who witnessed what happened with a lot of these police officers. very different for ordinary citizens with the grand jury. the next chapter is called elected prosecutors and police accountability by professor ron wright. i focus a lot on electing good, progressive prosecutors, and that chapter will be revealing

when it talks about how prosecutors are elected. and the next chapter is called "do black lives matter to the courts," and it was written by cher lin i fill who is the counselor of the naacp defense educational fund and also a staff attorney there. talks about the law and the history of the law, and we'll reveal a lot about why it's so difficult, why the courts are not exactly friendly to claims of discrimination anymore and many other issues x. the final chapter's called "poverty, violence and black incarceration" by jeremy travis and bruce western. so those are the essays. and i want to spend the remainder of my time before opening it up for questions talking about my own contribution to the volume which is called "the prosecution of black men." and also, if there's time, a little bit about these killings and, you know, how is it, why is it, how could it be that these

police officers have not been held accountable. i think that's a question i get, and i'm not sure i know the answer but would like to explore and talk about what i think some of the issues are. but a bit about my chapter, kate mentioned that i've spent a lot of my time writing about prosecutors, and i have. and 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 is. we know there should be a focus given all that has been going on. and by the way, you know, just to stress -- and i mentioned this before -- the killings of black men didn't start with trayvon martin. this has been going on since slavery. and so brian stevenson's chapter lays that out and explains that so well. but, and of course there should be a focus on police officers. police officers have a tremendous amount of power and discretion on the street to stop people, to search them, and the law makes it very easy for them

to do that. but i think people should focus also on prosecutors, and i don't think people have been focusing on them a lot. they are the most powerful officials in our criminal justice system. police officers absolutely have 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. and 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. and why do i say that? well, if a police officer arrests a perp on the streets -- a person on the streets, 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 to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor can decide to take it, you know, and prosecute the case, or they can dismiss it. it's totally up to the prosecutor. even if there's probable cause to believe the person committed the offense, and that's the standard, the very low standard of probable cause is what the standard is for charging a person, more probable than not, very easy to show that. 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 that point or they can decide not to charge a person. it's totally within their discretion. and they are accountable to no one but chief prosecutor of that office. right? and that decision is made behind closed doors, right? it's not a public decision. prosecutors don't tell, make a public announcement i'm charging this person, and i'm 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? if a prosecutor, you know, can see one kid brought in, let's say he's arrested with five bags of cocaine, prosecutor's got a lot of options there. the police officer might say, well, he's got five bags of cocaine, why don't you charge him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine which is a felony offense that in most states carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5, 10, sometimes more years. mandatory minimum meaning that if the person is convicted, they must serve all of that time no matter what. so the prosecutor facing -- looking at a potential defendant with five bags of cocaine can charge five counts, can charge five counts of possession with

intent to distribute, charge the felony, but they also can just simply charge a misdemeanor possession even though they may have the evidence for the felony. they can say, well, i think i'll just charge the misdemeanor. or they can just dismiss it and say i'm not charging at all. they have the discretion to do any of those things, and 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's in charge of that. that's a tremendous amount of power if you think about it. right? because one kid comes in and he sees one kid and says, well, you know, i remember when i was back in college, i used to sell a little done -- [laughter] youthful indiscretion -- [laughter] i've turned out all right. that kid, you know, this kid over here looks like, you know, a kid who looks a certain way reminds me of me when i was young. and he's got a future, and i don't want to ruin that future by, with a criminal record. so i'm going to let this slide.

whereas another kid comes in looking very different, from a very different neighborhood, right? and he's automatically maybe he'll charge him with a felony. that's a tremendous amount of power. and the thing about it is, it's complicated because i'm not saying that that prosecutor is saying, you know, that's a rich white kid, i'm going to give him a 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. right? these unconscious feelingsing and views that we -- feelings and views that we all, every one of us in this room of all races and genders have, right? the unconscious views that we all have based on negative stereotypes that we pick up in society around us and the media and everywhere, right? could be based on race or gender or skin color or hair or body size. we're not even aware we have those biases.

it's that thing that makes some people when a black man walks on the elevator, they don't even realize their body's moving over to the corner, right? and not just white folk, by the way, right? i don't know if anybody remembers, i know this is on c-span, reverend jackson, don't be mad at me. [laughter] i don't know if you all remember years ago when reverend jackson, it came out he was walking down the street in washington, d.c., and he looked behind him and was relieved to see it was a white man. reverend jackson, who i used to work for and who i love -- [laughter] 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 are making decisions that are impacted by that implicit bias, that's a dangerous thing, right? because you have someone's life and liberty in your hands, and you're being influenced by your unconscious views. you're not even realizing what you're doing.

but yet it's happening, right? and the fact that it's 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 someone is treated unfairly. if these two young men, similarly situated, right? both of them charged with the same thing, maybe neither one of them had a record because that's one of the things that prosecutors take into account, right? or maybe the black kiddied have an arrest -- kid did have an arrest record, but he wasn't convicted. why? maybe because they were the result of racial profiling, and there wasn't a case there. there's all kinds of complicated things that go into that charging decision. same thing with plea bargaining. so if you all watch that show -- well, there are many "law and order" shows -- [laughter] i guess there's about eight or nine. if you watch many of the "law and order" shows, you think all these trials are going on. not so in the criminal justice system.

there are not a lot of trials. there are a lot of guilty pleas going on. 95% of all criminal cases are resolved by way of a guilty plea. 95%. only a 5% of criminal cases actually go to trial with a jury and all that. and that process, the plea bargaining process is, again, totally controlled by prosecutors. so how does it work? prosecutor says, okay, i'm going to charge you with five counts of burglary. and that's the other thing, there's this phenomenon of overcharging. they may not even be sure they can prove all of those burglaries beyond a reasonable doubt, but they sure can charge 'em, because all they have to do to charge them is to show probable cause, like more likely than not. so they pile on all these charges, and it gives them an advantage at the plea bargaining stage. all right, let's make it a harder case. drug charges, five mandatory minimum charges. you're looking at 50 years on the bottom meaning if you're convicted after trial, you're

going to be, you're going to have to serve 50 years before you see the light of day. tell you what, says the prosecutor, i'll make you a deal. i'll allow you to plea to one of these ten-year mandatory minimums, and then i'll dismiss the other four. sounds like a good deal, right? ..

a lot of times the plea offers are made like a prosecutor can come to the defense attorney and trashed i will tell you what, i will give your guy a feel. between five or 5 o'clock that he needs to either agree to take the plea or is off the table. and the defense attorney might say wait a minute, had an ethical duty and so how can i advise my attorney this coming too bad. it is not illegal in our criminal justice system. that is the weight it goes on every day in courtrooms across the country.where a defense attorney is going to client saying look i don't know you might have a defense but they are making an offer. the decision is up to the client. that's not the way justice is supposed to look.

if the plea bargain process worked in a way that the prosecutors and 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. nothing all prosecutors do what i mentioned before but many of them do. that is a system that we have and a lot of the systems. they try to move things along. judges lovably. judges love that. they only take a few minutes. trial takes sometimes days and they have to move that calendar, right? but that is a human being behind all of that.so you can see why i think prosecutors are the most powerful in the criminal justice system. and i can go on and on but in the interest of time i will not. i will say one more thing about

this. the problem is and i talked with some of prosecutors and they say look, i say you know you does make these decisions behind closed doors you're not accountable to the public people, they don't know you're doing, you maybe not causing this intentionally but you are. and they say look, if my constituents don't like it they can vote me out. and i say well - some things that is funny! we live in a democracy. we hold those accountable to whom we grant power and democracy is all about transparency.and there is no transparency in the prosecution function when it comes to charges and plea bargains. those decisions is a setter made behind closed doors. so most state and local prosecutors i should say that there are federal prosecutors and us attorneys over the federal districts. 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 all criminal cases are handled on the state and local level. so there are thousands of states attorneys, district attorneys, they are called different things in different jurisdictions. and they are elected. -- all the rest of them are elective. they run for office. it is different in the district of columbia though. it is a very imperfect system of accountability. because and ron white's chest. the how many prosecutors, they served for decades, run unopposed, people go to the ballot box in election years and sometimes there's only one name there because people don't challenge them. and when they do try to challenge an incumbent, it is

almost impossible to unseat them. when he ran for office there not talk about the stuff i'm talking about here today. right? they are not saying to their constituents, they are nothing hear my plea bargaining policies in my charting policies and here's what i'm doing about racial disparities in the criminal justice environment. i've never heard a da run on that. in the past anyway. and still so in most jurisdictions they run on i am tough on crime and if they have an opponent they will say i am tougher on crime [laughter] and they don't talk about what they do! the really important decisions that they're making behind closed doors. and it is also important to educate ourselves we can ask the hard questions. i bet if you would go to a forum put on by a prosecutor and raise her hand and say, what is your charging and plea bargaining policy? they would sink. and i urge you to do that. [laughter] you should ask that question.

but i say to you, is really important to pay attention to your district attorney. it's important for people to care about the justice system and i'm happy to say in 2016 a number of prosecutors were challenged around the country and were unseated. not that many but some and a lot of attention has been paid through chicago, orlando and i can go on and on. but there is a movement i think of people pay more attention to prosecutors and what they do. and i'm happy to hear that. i think it is really important that we pay attention to that. i want to close again with some statistics and then i will open up for questions. united states criminal justice system is the largest in the world. at the end of 2011 approximately 7 million

individuals were under some form of correctional control in the united states changed 2.2 million incarcerated federal state or local prison and jail for the us has the highest rate in the world. working the rate of nearly every other nation.racial minorities are more likely to be arrested, one trust that they're more likely to be convicted and more likely to face sentences. african-american men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white men and insistently situated white counterpart and 2.5 times more likely than hispanic and with the current trends continuing from one of every three black american men born today can expect of a prison in his lifetime. as can one of every six latinos as compared to one of 17 white men. so we have a problem in this country today, right? it is not a badge of honor to

be number one in incarceration, it is a badge of shame by -- why do we have this? i tried to explain and is complicated. there are a lot of complex reasons why at the end of the think it is an unjust and unfair system i will have to fight to change it. thank you for hearing me out. paul stretched. [applause] as a reminder if you will come to the microphone so - [inaudible] there men carried

signs saying i am a man. i believe that in police involved shootings what i've seen there is a fear whether it is without a weapon. [inaudible] >> if you shoot someone who is running or unarmed people, it is just so painful to see that. in the look at how dylann roof was treated. whose job is it, whose responsibility is it? and so when you see this person unarmed or this african-american man is a human

being and deserves respect. >> yes, thank you so much for that. very insightful question and statement. what you said transport unit is already found what you just said is a lot of this actually. it is really scary and sad and depressing that for black men and boys their very existence, they can be doing nothing. standing on a street corner talking, just being, right? just living. it creates suspicion in the minds. they see black invasive criminal. or not human. he just said that it is true. in several of the chapters, the transit -- the chapter on black boys, they discuss these studies is really quite shocking, particularly police

officers to try and put a gauge whether they will have implicit bias i talked about before. they show them these images, black boys. they repeatedly overestimate the age and size of left voice. always seeing them as older and larger than they really are. because of this bias. immediately that is what they see. some of the police studies that were done in the chapter about implicit bias, where they would ask a police officer, they show them images and quickly and quickly ask them to respond was that should a shoot or not shoot? they would see weapons in the hands of unarmed managed and not see them in the hands of white men that were armed. studies show this. so it's an incredible burden to

put on a black boy for a man quite friendly to say that act a certain way. a lot of people here have given it son and daughter's the talk, don't talk back to police officers, put your hands on the hood - what we saw a lot of the videotapes, i believe it was philando castile, we saw stephen in other cases tamir rice. they weren't doing anything wrong. it is not going to save you all the time in that is what is scary. in your question what can we do about it?you say is not a question planning but actually some of our systems that is a big part of it because there is something called implicit bias training and i know people here about this divergent training. and they are like not really but there is really good

training around implicit bias. there was a chapter for making implicit bias. and it shows that when you make people aware of their implicit biases it is the first step in getting rid of it. so there actually are very good implicit bias training on your pretty people doing and i recently went to a conference on this in washington d.c. within brought together many different people in the criminal justice system. the woman doing the training, there is a specific training for tryon get that there's a judge giving instructions to judges about implicit bias to make them aware before they make a decision. i do think training is a big part of it. at least a step. i will stop there. we will go to the side now.

[inaudible] >> i am an elderly white woman and i thought i didn't have any bias. 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 did not think of a black person as a full person. we saw them as and a half

person or - and i think that a lot of people glance over the fact that we might be biased and i had to look straight at it and it was uncomfortable. and i am not there yet but i am not a police officer. [inaudible conversations] >> i believe now that police officers, especially a prosecutor we have now, i hope he is not here. [laughter] >> is very guilty of bias.

>> thank you, i really appreciate your comments. i do. thank you. i really appreciate that. i appreciate that you are here, i appreciate that your reading the book and you say you feel transport we all have implicit biases. people of every race. thank you very much for your comments. >> thank you for coming out and i appreciate your racial makeup of the audience. i have a story end in a question. transporting a off-duty black opposite to the airport in this issue came up. he told me my number one priority was to get out of the situation alive. is it i'm not going to win -- visas if you want to fight fight in the courthouse. then you show me an uphill battle even in the courthouse i would have one but at least i am alive. and second is a question. this disparity in the court room, you close a conspiracy.

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

think some of it is intentional but not all of it. i will give you an example of intentional. there was a case in new york city i write about in one of the - is void verse new york city. not many people know about it but they see the police department because they were engaged in systematic unconstitutional behavior. they were doing this intentionally because they had a police officer on the inside that wired themselves and caught them, the police chiefs telling them to go and stop black boys. so it was incredible. without getting into the details my point is that not all of it is unintentional. and it does not excuse it. we have 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 is really hard. [inaudible] it is hard to find -- fire police officers for they have unions. and donald trump made a payment to encourage police officers to engage in police brutality. i mean that is outrageous.i do not know why i continue to be shocked by the things that he says. but i was shocked that so many claims to be the president of united states would say to the police, be rough, basically - and you have a lot of these organizations, is actually no. that is wrong. police unions have not spoken against that. anyway. i think we are over here now. >> there is a big difference between a white person and a racist. a racist cannot be trained.

they are in their racism they will never change, then no intention of changing. so that is what you are working with. the ones who are ordinary white police officers who really, they do have implicit bias and they were willing to work with task, a willingness. and speaking training to do better. but is never going to be eliminated. the racism is there and even the ones we are talking about can be trained. they are racist as well. blue-eyed, brown eyed - she essentially said that america is a racist country. you might as well face it. it is what it is. you did a very excellent job of

tracing from 400 years ago a pattern of behavior. we have had plenty of opportunity to adjust atlanta-based malice is there, the intention cannot address it, is not to anyone's advantage and we have challenges just as he reached it is not going to be distressed, they have been brilliant minds who have studied this. there is no hope and so on the people do not like that. that is a grim picture and that's the way it is. and also, as far as - basically that's it. if you keep doing it all the data in all the studies you look at the 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 racism is here, it has been

here, it is part of the character of america. it will never go away. and we know it. if they want to be honest, then address it but if you want to just keep on playing games, and one other thing, genocide sounds like a conspiracy but when you follow the statistics and data genocide and economic devastation has been long-term. and systemic. and it is not just law enforcement and the justice system which is very vile and injustice. it is america. this is what america is known for outside the board is because this is what america is. >> thank you for a comment. [applause] i disagree with some of what you say and disagree with

others. i had to have hope because i have a child and grandchildren so - [applause] there are some racist people that will never change but there are some who will change. either because they get it whether they are made to change. so you know some people decided desegregation that they were going to go to school, nothing let the kids go to school. but guess what? they were made to do it because the law required them to do it. so for people who do not want to behave or people who are acting unconstitutionally or who are acting racist, you can't be in his position of power is my point. so what i think is that racism is always going to be there i know will always be there. but i also think that some people do change and i don't think every person is a racist. i have to believe that. i also have to believe in the change element again because to

say people that there is no hope i'm not going to set the little black or brown boys and grow that there is no hope. because what does that do to them? i think we have to keep fighting for it. i think there are good minded people. i do. i have to believe it. [applause] >> professor david thank you for coming down to atlanta i really appreciate you. i'm wondering if when you are 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 or if some of it came your way unintentionally. but i am curious about maybe the unintended audience of the book and there has been some dialogue there. >> is only my second reading so we will see. but i have had interactions with a lot of prosecutors that i spoke to and so on. police officers because there

is a organization called noble. i'm not some of the leaders that agree with what i am saying. so i think that there are some folks out there who know that there is a problem that needs to be changed but not enough of them. it will be interesting to see. so far have not gotten any, you all are a very friendly audience so i appreciate that. [laughter] my boss is not here so i'm going to let the q&a continue but as you like to make sure that you are asking a question and not making a comment. >> thank you for coming and i appreciate hearing this. you did a great job in stating the problem. one of the things that particular you talked about implicit bias. i'm interested in looking at solutions.

i agree with you also about not giving up hope.i do think that things can change. things are always changing. i'm a working artist. one of the things i'm interested in and dealing with right now is that same issue that you are dealing with. i'm also a father and a grandfather of young black men. and so when i think about the implicit bias the question i asked, where does it come from? one of the things that i think of that may be very many areas that it comes from but subliminal messaging, i do think it is important that we can go back to looking at birth of a nation and the cartoons in the caricatures and the imagery that was created. and not just white people but black people as well. so today we are the byproduct of all of that. >> exactly. so a willingness to change that implicit bias in my mind is look into the arts.

looking at filmmakers, painters, dancers, performers, poetry etc. it's a question i have for you. what role do you see the artist, any artist in bringing about positive social change? >> you answered the question. a tremendous role, the arts play transport theater, visual art, they are so powerful and powerful. i believe it plays an incredible role. the arts move people emotionally.you mentioned subliminal messaging and the negative there. no question that the positive runs playing a role so thank you for your question. [applause] >> i have a question would also want to make a quick comment. i'm very sorry. [laughter] i want to say hope everyone

continues to have hope because i used to be extremely racist. i believe in the bootstrap theory, the welfare queen and enough people yelled at me to make me realize these things are absolutely false and i feel like i understand that is sometimes really hard to have hope but it is really good we should have a louder voice is a this has to stop because we spend enough time being biased and being very racist as well. so please don't lose hope. [applause] my question is that during george's last legislative season we had a bill introduced to the house it was hb 116. the purpose of the bill was to expand the number of crimes that juveniles could be charged with that word sent to superior court. i found it really upsetting because reading into it i found that the crime was actually armed robbery and ananova investment i was a victim of an armed robbery i would want to

see a 15-year-old good to an adult prison. >> unfortunately a lot of people do. >> i am really curious if you know about whether there is a difference in the rate of recidivism versus when a juvenile is charged as an adult or going to the juvenile justice system and can we reduce the rate of this in the juvenile justice system? >> first of all let me just say something about the bill. i am not familiar with the details of it but the last thing we need is to create more crimes. the united states of america has, which criminalized everything! everything! and sometimes there are six or seven crimes that you can be charged with for the same act. and a lot of times the titles of these crimes are scarier than - you mentioned an armed robbery, okay? in armed robbery to be for juvenile, say it could be a group of kids. because juveniles are - aims to represent kids.

a lot of times they do not think about i'm going to go rob somebody. it could be a group of them walking down the street and one of them says look at that lady unaware her purse and they all start running and everyone starts running because they don't know what's going on. all of them are charged with robbery! they are impulsive, they don't think and in armed robbery doesn't necessarily mean a gun. i have seen prosecutors who have charged people with assault with a dangerous weapon for kicking someone with a shoe on. but i have this charged with one of my clients in washington d.c.. assault with a dangerous weapon a shot foot, that is a foot with a shoe on. i don't know if you remember the gina six cases? one of those kids was charged

with assault with a dangerous weapon and the weapon was a shoe. so it gives an example of how the crimes i'm sure, so it takes a gun and pointed at somebody that is a dangerous crime. but not every armed robbery is that. but you get to the point of recidivism. there is no question if you take a child and put them in the adult system they are not going to be rehabilitated. they're going to be made worse. it is not going to help them, is not going to help society because they're going to get out at some points. when they get out there going to be worse than when they went in. they are not in a rehabilitative program for children in an adult prison.

>> i appreciate your courage because that's what it takes. this should be a dialogue for politicians because every prosecutor in georgia is electer and think you and your chapter for mentioning some of the people we fought against terror. not because we hated them, but

because they didn't do correct things in the justice system. i was one of seven people on the original citizens review and we didn't have independence. there are no more citizen review commissions in georgia in spite of the horrific record of the justice here. of the seven of us, five were attorneys and i and one other person were the early once demanded the police chiefs come forward and answer some questions at least about trading, but because we did not have independence the politicians picked the one we had.g unit i'm not talking about me. on target about the way these things work. please give us some hints in order not just to vote, but to get independence. >> were they reviewing police behavior? >> yes. it came about because they shot a black woman named catherine johnson 53 times and planted pot

on her and the only reason we know about that-- excuse me-- is because the informant jumped out of a car in fear of his hold life. the cops did go to jail for a short time, but that women didn't sell dope, but they busted down the door and killed her, so out of that the uproar caused the review commission.. se please tell us or give us advice for some kind of independence-- independence. >> thank you. [applause]. appreci >> i don't have the answer for you. i appreciate what you are saying because a lot of these review boards don't have the power to anything to the copy because they don't have the independence and all i can say is your elected officials, i mean, you have to-- that's why democracy

is ugly. it's hard and difficult.th that's the only way we can do it is to speak up and make our voices known to our elected officials to let them know what we the people want and that's about the only way to do it. i think that the only way. >> thank you for being here. the question i have is about the jury system.estion i in these police killings that have gone to trial the jury's have not convicted them. have nv i can't understand that. that baffles me. is this bias or something elseis involved there. >> thank you for that question because i wanted to answer that question.e it out that is something i've beenn thinking so much about.h

after some of these cases walter scott who was running away with his hands in the air got shot in the air-- in the back. we saw eric gardner being choked to death, so it's hard when you see this with your own eyes. i teach criminal law, so i know what a murder is what i see one and then to have in the case of eric gardner now charged it in the case of walter scott they came back hung jury and in the case of casey shall beware to cameras showed her shootdown terrence crusher showed her not guilty to the question some juries after that and i remember the jury's are so sad no one wins here and we did have a choice because the lot required as to find the person guilty and i was thinking no they didn't understand because here's the deal. it's true the law favors police

officers. the supreme court in a series of cases basically there is this real loose reasonable standardrd the supreme court has set like it's reasonable for the police officer to believe they are in danger or someone else is in danger they can use deadly force and they allow police officers to use deadly force in a wider range of circumstances that you and i because we are called self defendants, but it's clear, you have to be in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death before you can use deadly force. intimate means someone has to come out you with a weapon before you can legally kill that person because the law says you

-- not so for cops. they don't have to be in imminent danger and it doesn't have to be seriously body or death. just loose safety standards it doesn't have to be imminent, so the law gives them permission, but the thing is when those police officers testified in a few trials because most didn't go to trial because most weren't charged, but in the acquittals you heard these jurors saying this. i think what happens is when the police of his or got on the stand and said i believe i was about to be killed, even though the juries saw and some of this is videotape where clearly the person wasn't coming out them and there was no weapon it didn't seem reasonable to me that they would feel they were to be killed. why would you think you were to be killed when the person had their hands up?

juries are not required to believe testimonies that are now believable, but the judges tell all jurors in all cases judgege the credibility of the witness and if the witness is not credible or saying something now believable, you can reject it. or if these police officers because of their bias even though the person is not armed or saying i feel i'm in danger a juror could say no, that's not results, what you did was at a minimum reckless, so the law did not require them to do that. i don't know if it's bad jury instructions, but accommodation of the law and i think misunderstanding of the job, but again so few have gone to trial. thank you for that question. it's complicated. >> okay.

in 2006 the fbi produced a report that you can see online, but it's mostly redacted that shows there was a heavy white supremacists kkk presence within our police force that report made specifically republicans throw a hissy fit. they were like no. they took another bite at the apple in 2009 with the department of homeland security under janet napolitano that said we have this problem because we have approximately 18000 police forces around the country. we have a problem with white supremacists infiltrating our police department and we need to address this. again, the republicans through a history and janet napolitano

decided to be stylists and rejected the report out of hand. it was shelved again and there is nothing being addressed with this issue. i understand implicit bias, but we have to talk about the presence of isa premise. in one instant someone was wearing a kkk t-shirt underneath his uniform. i understand implicit bias, but then there is not even implicit. this is explicit. when are we going to deal with this? >> i agree with everything you said and there was a case of an officer in washington dc foundfo 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 there-- that. there's no excuse for the laws not helpful in health-- helping us get rid of implicit bias.

there's a constitutional requirement of showing intentional discrimination. there is no remedy for it implicit bias, but there are legal remedies for explicit clear racist. charges have to be brought to her people to be fired in that situation. with i agree with you and i really. >> you answered part of my question while i'm standing here , but i'm a law enforcement and we are trained in ground versus connor and i wanted youu to elaborate because that objectionable reasonable standard is what they are using to justify their use of the force. when i was studying this case i was appalled. >> stunned by the case involving the kid who is diabetic? >> yes. that's the ruling. he was diabetic and they thought he robbed a convenience store he

did nothing and was basically beat up and attacked and that's how the case became before the supreme court. >> you gave the facts basically and scott b harris is another case involved with police officers ramming a car. in this case a kid was having a diabetic shock situation ran to a 711 and called into an altercation with police and they beat him up in the supreme coura said it was okay because the police officers acted reasonably even though he was not doing that.us scott versus harris, a person was in a car, high-speed chase. she should not been speeding.eh police officers came up behind him and rammed his car repeatedly crushing him and turning him into a quadriplegic because they decided they had to stop this car because he was speeding and at the supreme court said that was reasonable because he could've hurt other people when he was speeding, so it's fine for the police officers to do that even though

it left him the way it did. about the law we are dealing with. the law is bad. >> we keep talking in circles about pad policy-- bad policy. >> closer. >> we keep talking about bad policy in this country and shallow though it may be from time to time the hyatt morality points we try to legislate just that morality going back to the late civil rights in the 1960s and even recently, equity in marriage for our gay brothers and sisters, but at this point for us or black and brown bodies what are our policy options?g to what is it 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 over prosecuting me, but what are our policy options? 's elect to make sure i understand your question i guess it depends on what issue you aro talking about. you talk about police using deadly force? >> it's more of a broad question and maybe you can help me narrow it down myself. 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 att a higher rate with longer sentences at a higher rate. what is the language we should be using to our legislators because we can and 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 longer, but that is not a solution. >> couple things. thank you for your question. i can't give you specific legislative language right now.i

depends on the bill, the issueue and all of those things. black lives matter movement is so important. people my age-- no, we need folks in the streets marching because if you think for one minutes the laws and policies will be passed without people in the street you are deluding yourself. we need both. it's not either or. we don't need the black lives movement to say those of us that are lawyers and we don't need to tell folks out there marching-- we know from history it's always taken all of that and it will continue to. i think we need new laws, but ie the bottom line is it depends on the issue. it is also important even when you got good law, you got bad people implementing the laws it's really doesn't matter.

what i'm focusing on now is with prosecutors we got to get to thu bad prosecutors and get them out and good progressive people in their. it does make a difference. if you don't know who kim fox is , she's the new da in chicago. she unseated alvarez. anita alvarez had a videotape she sat on it would not reveal that showed the police officer killed him unlawfully. she would not release it or she said we are working with the fbi and can't release. a judge ordered her to release it and it showed the cop murdered this boy and it shall the sudden scrambled and startee judging the cop. kim fox gave in and ran against her and ran her out. it's not just about police killings. kim fox now implements policiese

and practices reducing racial disparity. she just issued a policy getting these folks locked up on money bonds in chicago for minoror offenses getting them or lace spirit she was a prosecutor, but she's doing it because she has the mindset.in the [inaudible] >> i'm not doing it. concourse governor rick scott removed her from the cases in her jurisdiction where death penalties are, but now she is suing the governor. it's getting messy, but the point is we had to get progressive people in positionse to implement the policy becaused if you don't have folks in their it doesn't matter what the laws are. how are we looking with time? do we have time for signing? >> if you are in line and you can ask the fastest question you

can, but if not we will ask at the book signing. >> i'm 23 years old and i'm mentoring young group of teenage boys-- i'm 24 years old and i mentor a group of young black teenage boys and girls and they have become desensitized to the videos of police brutality. i just get tired and in talking to them and trying to teach them different ways of how to replace the system of white suppressive -- supremacy with a system of justice. are there any ways you can tell me to tell them how they can grow up and replace the system with a justice? >> what i say to you is keep doing what you are doing because a lot of times on people in particular get discouraged-- old people do to. you are making a difference. you may be discouraged because you hear those kids, but they are getting it because you are

there in your mentoring them and it's making a difference even though you don't realize it. i'm just telling you to keep doing it. maybe we can take a couple of questions. we won't be able to get everyone. let me tell you one more because i think we are losing people. >> my question is very similar to his because i established a black student union within my school and one thing thatat constantly came up was you are considered guilty instead of innocent and 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 career paths what would be the most necessary part for them? what is the fuel that needs the most adjustment? where is it needed the most? >> great question and he say to them what i say to my law students when they sat want to do something in criminal

justice, but i don't know if i want to be a defense attorney or a prosecutor and i say i was a defense attorney. we need more good public defenders, but we also need good prosecutors, site say tell me what your gut is. if you find you want to be a defender be the best defender you can be. if you want to be a prosecutor, read my book to figure out-- [laughter][laughte >> be a progressive prosecutor and use that power to do good. there are 70 opportunities forit young people today and organizations out there doing positive progressive things. whatever they are interested in, whether it's arts as someone mentioned, policy, history where there is technology, go and do what's in their heart to do andf all of those things can be used to promote social justice, all of this. whatever they are interested in,

be the best they can be and there are avenues out there and organizations out there to help them to promote justice and i would encourage you to encourage them to do that, so thank you all very much. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> book tv is on twitter and facebook and we want to hear from you. tweet us, twitter.com. /book tv or post a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com. /book tv.