As race and diversity became a central pillar of controversy and for discussion in 2020, California passed the Racial Justice Act (RJA). Heralded as a groundbreaking measure that promoted a stronger system of justice without the prejudice of race, it was intended to allow defendants to challenge wrongful convictions or sentencing decisions that were tainted by racial bias.
On paper, it sounded good and righteous. However, in the five years since the act was passed, it has proved to be a detriment to the very cause it was attempting to amend. The act has become one that rarely yields any positive or intended results and instead wastes taxpayer money, court time, and government resources.
At least, in theory, the law promised a fairer justice system that would address the constant and persistent criticism that the American judicial system often fails to be colorblind. Ideally, this law would prevent and bring some sort of betterment to Californians, especially those unfairly convicted or sentenced.
However, what was intended to be a safeguard against racial discrimination in courtrooms has instead become yet another one of convicts’ many futile attempts to appeal. It is rarely used successfully or for its intended purpose and instead consumes taxpayer dollars while clogging an already overburdened court system with baseless appeals.
The RJA was established as a method of appeals. If someone had believed their case was unfairly sentenced or that they had been unfairly convicted on the basis of skin color, the RJA would help to rectify that, and, if presented with enough compelling evidence, it would be overturned.
In a country with an undeniable past of institutionalized racism, legislators hoped to create a legal process to appeal these racially biased cases. Thus, they could strengthen trust in California’s courts and correct prejudicial injustices that had slipped through the cracks.
The RJA was sold as a noble method of appeal. If someone believed that their case had been in some way unfair or unjust and it led to a conviction or unnecessarily lengthy sentence, they could appeal, and if successful, have their conviction overturned. Sounds simple enough, right?
That is where all the problems began. Virtually anyone can file an appeal to their case on the RJA. Inmates who have served long sentences and exhausted all other forms of appeal are now presented with a new option to challenge their convictions. Despite many of them not believing that skin color was a crucial factor in their punishment, they still appeal, given the option. Since filing a claim requires very little evidence beyond the argument that race may have played a role, many long-term prisoners see no downside in trying.
This continues a pattern of convicts with long sentences appealing their sentences at higher rates. With the RJA, they have a new way to do so.
Yet, when push comes to shove and actual evidence is needed to prove some sort of prejudice against the defendants, few can meet that burden. The law is incredibly narrow, and proving racial bias after many years is nearly impossible. Despite this, the system is forced to entertain nearly every single claim filed.
After all, if every other appeal has failed, what’s the harm to the convicted?
That is ultimately where the absurdity of the RJA lies. It is like leaving the door to the courthouse open and welcoming nearly every long-term inmate to take another stab at their case. Since filing an RJA claim requires so little beyond a vague suggestion that race might have been a factor, inmates with nothing to lose have taken the bait.
After all, if every other appeal has failed, why not further waste the court’s time with one more? For the convicted, there is no punishment for trying. For the state, however, the harm is much more costly.
Each time an appeal is filed, the courts are required to review it, assign it resources like a state-appointed attorney, and hold hearings. This all requires money. These funds come from the purse of the state or county government, which is funded by taxpayer dollars.
Even without the concern of money, time is not infinite, and the court is busy as well. Many judges in San Mateo County and throughout the state have calendars backlogged for months into the future, and an RJA hearing is certainly not quick. While it can be as short as one afternoon, it can drag on for days or even weeks. Thus, it takes up much of the courts’ time as well as the time of the defendants’ often state-appointed attorneys.
RJA hearings not only waste time, but also delay justice for victims in other cases who seek justice or defendants who seek to end hearings, as occupying one of the very limited number of judges’ time further backlogs the court system.
The act has morphed into a method for convicts to exploit. It is now a method of frivolous appeals filed not in the pursuit of justice, but rather in the often-unrealized dream of shaving a few years off their sentence, or worse, to use the courts’ resources as entertainment during their long sentences.
Even overturning a conviction under the RJA through genuine attempts at appealing on the grounds is difficult, as a defendant and their attorneys must demonstrate concrete evidence that race played an unfair role in their trial, sentencing, or conviction.
Since evidence like this is so rare and difficult to prove, as many juries and judges mask any signs of racial bias or prejudice, there is very little proof to overturn sentences or convictions.
Taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for this inefficiency. State-appointed attorneys, court clerks, judges, and prosecutors spend hours to days reviewing evidence and preparing responses.
The issue is not just a few dollars here and there. Instead, it is an accumulation across the many convicts who choose this method to appeal that causes a significant and futile financial drain on counties.
Despite some claims from supporters of the RJA stating that the justice system needs the RJA to mitigate racial inequality, the reality is that the law is backfiring. Instead of protecting those who have truly been harmed by bias or prejudice, the system is being swamped by long-term convicts filing baseless appeals simply because the option exists. This abuse dilutes the very purpose of the act.
Essentially, with a constant flood of futile appeals, the intent of the law simply turns into background noise. What was supposed to be a tool for justice in very specific cases becomes just another bureaucratic exercise that convicts can use to their advantage.
This ultimately causes the act to lose both its power and meaning. Thus, the structure of the RJA actually causes wasted resources on meritless claims and harms the fight against racial inequality in the justice system, as it diverts attention and funding away from genuine cases where bias has occurred.
Many counties in the state cannot afford to be drained of large quantities of their precious financial resources. Money that could be invested into meaningful community programs in the community, such as public safety, rehabilitation programs, and victim support, instead gets tied up in appeals that rarely succeed and are often filed with the defendants knowing this outcome.
Anyone serious about addressing racial inequality would revise the RJA at the very least to prevent meritless and time-wasting appeals from being filed.
Though displayed as a well-intentioned and modern change in the positive direction, the execution has failed. Ultimately, the RJA has proven to be more of a nuisance on the limited government resources than an actual help in reversing racially-motivated decisions.
