Equal Protection Under the Carceral State

49 Pages Posted: 29 May 2018 Last revised: 12 Jun 2018

Aya Gruber

University of Colorado Law School

Date Written: May 16, 2018

Abstract

McCleskey v. Kemp, the case that upheld the death penalty despite undeniable evidence of its racially disparate impact, is indelibly marked by Justice William Brennan’s phrase, “a fear of too much justice.” The popular interpretation of this phrase is that the Supreme Court harbored what I call a “disparity-claim fear,” dreading a future docket of racial discrimination claims and erecting an impossibly high bar for proving an equal protection violation. A related interpretation is that the majority had a “color-consciousness fear” of remedying discrimination through race-remedial policies. In contrast to these conventional views, I argue that the primary anxiety exhibited by the McCleskey majority was a “leniency fear” of death penalty abolition. Opinion author Justice Lewis Powell made clear his view that execution was the appropriate punishment for McCleskey’s crime and expressed worry that McCleskey’s victory would open the door to challenges of criminal sentences more generally. Understanding that the Court’s primary political sensitivity was to state penal authority, not racial hierarchy, complicates the progressive sentiment that McCleskey’s call-to-action is securing equality of punishment. Derrick Bell’s “interest convergence” theory predicts that even conservatives with an aversion to robust equal protection law will accept racial-disparity evidence when in the service of crime-control values. Indeed, Justice Powell may have been more sanguine about McCleskey’s discrimination claim had mandatory capital punishment been an option. Accordingly, I caution that, outside of the death penalty context, courts and lawmakers can address perceived punishment disparities through “level-up” remedies, such as mandatory minimum sentences or abolishing diversion (which is said to favor white defendants). There are numerous examples of convergence between antidiscrimination and prosecutorial interests, including mandatory sentencing guidelines, aggressive domestic violence policing and prosecution, and the movement to abolish Stand-Your-Ground laws.

Keywords: equal protection, death penalty, capital punishment, sentencing, racial disparity, discrimination, antidiscrimination, Baldus study, domestic violence, stand your ground, sentencing guidelies

JEL Classification: K14, K42

Suggested Citation

Gruber, Aya, Equal Protection Under the Carceral State (May 16, 2018). Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 112, No. 6, 2018; U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 18-23. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3179707

Aya Gruber (Contact Author)

University of Colorado Law School ( email )

401 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309
United States
(303) 492-8441 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=325

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
22
Abstract Views
107
PlumX