By Steve Halpern
The new Netflix series
When They See Us directed by Ava DuVernay gives us an in depth analysis of the so-called criminal justice system in the United States. While we are aware of the racist practices of this country during the times of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, this film gives clear evidence that many of those practices continue today. So, before I look at the historical connections, here are some of the facts of the case known as, The Central Park Five.
On the evening of April 19, 1989, Trisha Ellen Meili, a white twenty-eight year old investment banker, was raped and brutalized while she was jogging in Central Park, New York. Then, in the year 2002 Matias Reyes admitted to committing this crime. Semen samples taken at the scene of the crime matched Reyes’ DNA with a certainty of one in six-billion.
In the film When They See Us, we see Linda Fairstein, the supervisor of the sex crimes unit lecturing to police officers about how they should handle this case. She referred to the young Black people who were merely walking in Central Park as “animals.” She ordered police officers to go into Harlem and randomly pick up any young Blacks they might find.
The police eventually held Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Korey Wise, Yusef Salaam, and Antron McCray for questioning. They were 14, 15, and 16 years old. These young Black teenagers were, except for Wise, legally children. They were kept for over 24 hours without food, some were beaten, lied to, and coerced to confess to the rape.
Yusef Salaam’s mother intervened during his interrogation, and prevented him from being coerced to confess. The other confessions could only be obtained by means of sustained and brutal coercion.
Despite the fact that there was absolutely no physical evidence tying these young people to this crime, they were all convicted. They served between six and thirteen years in prison.
Because Korey Wise was sixteen he was sentenced as an adult and sent to adult prisons for thirteen years. In the film, When They See Us, we see how Wise was brutalized while he was in prison. Those beatings took place with the consent of prison guards.
In order to escape these beatings, Wise volunteered to be placed in solitary confinement. Solitary is one of the worst punishments a human being can endure. We also see how the heat in the cell Wise lived in was sweltering. That cell had access to air-conditioning, but the authorities routinely turned the air-conditioning off.
The racist history of the United States of America
When we think of the horrors these young Black men experienced, we might also consider that Black people have been brutalized throughout the history of the United States. Edward E. Baptist documented this brutalization in the years of slavery in his book, Half Has Never Been Told.
Baptist showed how slave owners were driven to increase the productivity of their slaves. They did this, using routine methods of torture.
During those years slaves needed to work at a furious pace under the hot sun in order to make their quota of picked cotton for each day. When they failed to reach this quota, slave owners punished them with beatings.
Clearly the Civil War was about the issue of slavery. However, the government in Washington didn’t have a goal of achieving a genuine liberation for the former slaves.
Before the Civil War, those who supported the interests of slave owners controlled the United States government. After the Civil War, Northern capitalists gained control of the government.
From the time of the end of the Civil War, until the year 1877, there was the beginning of a genuinely democratic atmosphere in the former slave states. This period was known as reconstruction. Black people became members of government and the federal army enforced the new state of affairs.
Then, in 1877, Rebuplican President Rutherford B. Hayes made a deal where federal troops were removed from the former slave states. This decision effectively gave political power to the terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan.
So, while the Republican Party had different origins than the Democratic Party, Hayes’ decision to effectively give power to the Ku Klux Klan demonstrated clearly that both parties had become the same.
The new political force in these states adopted what became known as the Jim Crow laws. These laws effectively abolished all citizenship rights for African Americans. Those laws were in flagrant violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. However, federal government officials refused to carry out their oath of office and outlaw Jim Crow.
Today there is a monument in Montgomery, Alabama commemorating about 4,000 people who had been lynched in this country. Because the federal government refused to prosecute those who were guilty of lynching, government officials became complicit in all those murders.
A large percentage of the lynchings in this country were about alleged instances of Black men raping white women. These allegations had support from a Harvard graduate named Philip A. Bruce. Bruce was the son of a plantation owner who was in possession of five-hundred slaves.
Bruce argued that Black men, “found something strangely alluring and seductive in the appearance of White women.” Bruce also argued that middle-class Blacks were a greater threat because they were, “more likely to aim at social equality and to loose the awe with which in slavery times, Black men had learned to respect the woman of the superior race.”
Ida Wells became a central leader in the movement to stop the murder of Black people. She investigated about 700 lynchings and uncovered the evidence that destroyed all of Bruce’s arguments. Wells showed that the thousands of Black men, women, and children who had been lynched never had a trial and were all victims of murder.
Wells discovered that many of those who had been lynched by racist mobs had consensual relations with white women. In some cases, the victims attempted to avoid these relationships, but were pursued by white women. Although the federal government was required to prosecute those who carried out these lynchings, rarely if ever did this happen.
The political party that usually runs New York City is the Democratic Party. Those police officers, as well as the District Attorney who framed-up the Central Park Five followed orders from Democratic Party politicians.
We can also say that the party that enforced the slave laws, as well as the Jim Crow laws was the Democratic Party. David Blight wrote a biography of Frederick Douglass, and summarized Douglass’ view of the Democratic Party. Frederick Douglass was, in my opinion, one of the most important leaders in the history of the United States.
“Douglass portrayed the Democrats as the enemies of mankind, and history itself. They were ‘fiendish. . .hellhounds’ ready to pounce on black people and their allies at their first grasp of power.”
While we can understand why Frederick Douglass had this opinion of the Democrats in his day, we might have the same opinion of the District Attorney’s office in New York City that prosecuted the Central Park Five.
By the years 1964 and 1965 the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. These laws were merely redundancies of the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Those laws effectively did away with the Jim Crow laws that had been in effect for decades.
Then, between the years 1966 and 1968 cities and towns across the United States erupted in open rebellion. While the federal laws argued that everyone was supposed to have equal rights, police brutality in the Black community was the routine reality.
In Czarist Russia, organizations known as the Black Hundreds carried out raids in the Jewish communities where thousands of Jews lost their lives. The Jewish community labeled these racist raids—pogroms.
I was fourteen years old and living in Newark, New Jersey when the rebellions erupted in that city. The then Governor Richard Hughes ordered the national guard to repress the rebellion. As a result of this order, over twenty people were murdered by the National Guard in Newark in 1967. The National Guard was called out to repress rebellions in cities all over the United States during those years.
Just as the Black Hundreds murdered Jewish people in Czarist Russia, the National Guard murdered Black people in cities across this country. While the National Guard went to war against citizens in this country, the armed forces of the United States were murdering millions of people in the war against Vietnam.
Philadelphia
In the years before the frame-up of the Central Park Five, events unfolded in Philadelphia that showed how this frame-up was in no way an isolated case.
•
In December of 1981, the President of the Black Journalists Association, Mumia Abu Jamal, was arrested by Philadelphia police in the murder of officer Daniel Faulkner. Mumia had been shot in the chest by Faulkner and has consistently denied that he was guilty. Mumia’s claim of innocence is backed up by a mountain of evidence that effectively destroys the prosecution’s case against him.
•
On March 27, 1985 the Philadelphia police implemented what they called “Operation Cold Turkey.” 1,444 residents of a predominantly Puerto Rican community were detained in a weeklong raid. The alleged excuse for this raid was a search for illegal drugs. The City of Philadelphia agreed to pay a $500,000 settlement that resulted from a lawsuit from those who were detained.
•
On May 13, 1985 a Philadelphia police helicopter dropped a bomb on the communal home of the organization MOVE, killing 11 residents who were trapped inside because of police gunfire. The bomb also caused three blocks of homes to be burned to the ground.
•
On May 28, 1985 Police Officer Thomas Trench was murdered in the largely Puerto Rican neighborhood of Spring Garden in Philadelphia.
•
The police carried out another raid in the Puerto Rican community responding to the murder of Officer Trench. Between 75 and 90 predominantly Latino residents shared a $45,000 settlement due to another harassment lawsuit.
•
Wilfredo Santiago was charged with the murder of Officer Trench. Santiago was in prison after the murder on assault charges that he was cleared of. Two prison inmates claimed Santiago confessed to the murder of Trench. These inmates eventually received lesser sentences for their testimony.
•
Another inmate who was serving time with Santiago testified that he was approached and asked to provide a false statement claiming that Santiago confessed to murdering Officer Trench.
•
Former Assistant District Attorney Barbara Christie, who was the lead prosecutor against Santiago, misused the subpoena power of the court in at least three incidents in the course of the Santiago case. Normally subpoenas are issued for witnesses to appear in a trial. Christie’s subpoenas in the Santiago case ordered witnesses to appear at the District Attorney’s office before going to trial. In fact the only reason for these subpoenas was Christie’s illegal attempt to gather evidence against Santiago.
•
At least three witnesses who testified in the Santiago case clamed that they gave one story to a police stenographer and another story was read in court. All three of these witnesses gave testimonies that supported Santiago’s innocence.
•
Common Pleas Court Judge Charles L. Durham ruled that the disputed police written testimonies of these witnesses could be used in the case against Santiago. These testimonies tied Santiago to the murder of Officer Trench.
•
In August of 1986 Wilfredo Santiago was convicted of murdering Police Officer Thomas Trench. The DA asked for the death penalty. Santiago was sentenced to life in prison.
•
In October of 1986, 3,000 people from across the nation protested in Washington D.C. demanding an end to civil rights violations of Puerto Ricans. Freedom for Wilfredo Santiago was one of the demands.
•
In 1992, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Wilfredo Santiago a new trial. The grounds for this new trial stemmed from the fact that a substantial amount of evidence was withheld from Santiago’s defense that might have exonerated him. Santiago was released from prison on a bail of $300,000.
•
Key police records in the case against Santiago were reported to be missing for the trial ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
•
Common Pleas Court Judge William J. Mazzola ruled that Santiago could not be retried because of the prosecution’s practice of “selectively excluding evidence that might have been favorable” to the defense.
•
On October 20, 2000 William Nieves was freed from death row when a Philadelphia jury acquitted him of a 1992 murder conviction. Nieves served six years on death row. Thirty days before his death warrant would have been signed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Nieves a new trial. Just as in the case against Santiago, the police withheld crucial evidence that eventually cleared Nieves of his murder conviction.
•
By 2004 Santiago was placed on trial again for assaulting his wife. He was sentenced to 21 to 41 years in prison.
•
On the same day as Wilfredo Santiago was convicted on those assault charges, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on an interview with Nicholas Yarris. Yarris was freed from prison after being held for twenty-two years on death row due to DNA testing which cleared him of a murder conviction.
Clearly Wilfredo Santiago has had problems with the law since his release from prison in 1992. Who wouldn’t have had problems after being wrongly convicted of murder and serving six years in prison? Santiago’s wife decided not to testify against her husband for a reason. Perhaps that reason has something to do with the fact that there is no justice in the so-called justice system.
Reactions to the Central Park Five
At the time of the arrest of the Central Park Five in 1989, President Donald Trump was a real estate investor. Trump spent $85,000 for ads in four New York City area newspapers. These ads wrote about the Central Park Five and argued: “Bring Back the Death Penalty.” “Bring Back the Police.”
The Guardian newspaper reported that Patrick Buchanan, former Press Secretary for President Reagan argued that sixteen-year-old Korey Wise should have been “tried, convicted, and hanged in Central Park by June 1.”
The New York Police Department made up a term used to describe their view of what the Central Park Five were doing. They called it, “wilding.” Tom Brokaw, reporting for NBC Nightly News defined wilding as young Black people “rampaging in wolf packs and attacking people just for the fun of it.”
Pete Hamill writing for the New York Post gave this description of wilding. “They were coming downtown from a world of crack, welfare, guns, knives, indifference, and ignorance.”
Just as Phillip A. Bruce gave an Ivy League endorsement to the vicious racism of his day, Princeton Professor John Di Lulio endorsed the racism of today in a 1995 Weekly Standard article titled: The Coming of the Super-Predators. Di Lulio argued that there were Black people who were, “so impulsive, so remorseless, that they can kill, rape, maim, without giving a second thought.”
Di Lulio argued that there would be an increase in the crime rate because of these so-called super-predators. He then apologized for his argument when the facts showed that the crime rates were actually going down.
Then, in 1994 President William Clinton signed the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. Since the signing of that law, the prison population in this country has skyrocketed. Today United States has more prisoners than any other nation in the world. Even China, with a population four times larger than the United States, has fewer prisoners.
Hillary Clinton, who ran against Donald Trump for President supported her husband’s so-called Law Enforcement Act. She called for authorities to bring, “the kinds of kids who are called ‘super predators,’ no conscience, no empathy. . .to heal.” By making this statement, Hillary Clinton showed she wasn’t significantly different from her opponent, Donald Trump. That statement, as well as Clinton’s thinking on this issue, might have cost her the election.
Conclusion
I attended public schools in Newark, New Jersey for twelve years. Every day, before we started our classes, my teachers asked us to stand up, place our hands on our hearts, and pledge allegiance to the flag. As we know, that pledge claims that the flag of this country represents, “liberty and justice for all.”
The facts I’ve presented in this blog give clear evidence that the Pledge of Allegiance is a bold-faced lie. In the film, When They See Us there is a scene where the New York District Attorney acknowledges this.
One of the defense lawyers in the Central Park Five case asked the District Attorney to be “fair.” The District Attorney, who had questions about the case from the beginning, replied, “This is not about being fair. This is about politics.”
President Trump has never apologized for asking for the death penalty in the case of the Central Park Five. He labeled the $41 million settlement given to the Central Park Five as the “heist of the century.” He went on to say, “Settling doesn’t mean innocence.” Even Trump’s fellow Republican Senator John McCain criticized Trump for these statements.
While the politics of President Trump are clearly abhorrent, how is the Democratic Party any different? They passed the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act that caused the prison population to skyrocket.
Today over 90% of the prisoners held in the dungeons of this country never went on trial. They are there because District Attorneys threatened them with long sentences if they refused to admit guilt. They call this the, “plea bargain.”
In many states anyone who is convicted three times will face life in prison. Years ago, I read an article about someone in California who was given a life sentence for having stolen four cookies. This was his third conviction. The Department of Agriculture argues that there are about 50 million people in this country who do not have enough food to eat. My co-workers, who were from other countries, could not believe that this is the law in the United States.
Liberty and justice for all? Vladimir Illiych Lenin gave a more accurate analysis of the reality of capitalism in his pamphlet, State and Revolution. Lenin argued that the state in the capitalist system is, “an instrument of repression.” My opinion is that this blog gives ample evidence that Lenin was right.
So, in order to bring some justice to this country, we need a completely different economic system. That system will advance a course where human needs are more important than profits. Then, we can talk about the idea of liberty and justice for all.
