Racial
and Ethnic Fairness in
the Oregon Justice System
The Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Issues in the
Judicial System formed in 1992 to study the treatment of racial and ethnic
minorities at multiple decision points in Oregon's criminal justice system.
The Task Force published its final report in 1994.
The Oregon Supreme Court Implementation Committee formed in 1994 to review
the status of recommendations by the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on
Racial and Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System. The Implementation Committee
published its report, A Commitment to Fairness, in January 1996.
It recommended a standing committee to maintain momentum, monitor implementation,
collect data, and help initiate new programs.
In 1997, the Chief Justice established the Access to Justice for All
Committee to fill that role. He charged the committee to monitor and coordinate
the implentation of recommendations from both reports and to advise the
Chief Justice of other potential barriers to fair treatment in the justice
system. The Access Committee publishes annual
progress reports.
The Access Committee hopes to develop an on-line database of current information
on the status of each task force recommendation. If your organization
has a project or initiative that implements a task force recommendation,
please share your successes! Contact the Access Committee by e-mail,
accesscomm@ojd.state.or.us,
or call 503.986.5611.
The reports of the Racial/Ethnic Issues Task Force and Implementation
Committee are available online. You must have the free Adobe
Acrobat Reader software installed on your computer. Adobe has a tool
available at "Access.Adobe.Com"
that will convert the PDF file to a format that most common screen-reading
programs can read.
The reports are quite big. You can download a full report or individual
chapters. View or download individual chapters of either report on the
Access Committee Publications page. To
download the full report using Netscape or Internet Exlorer
- Right-click your mouse on the link below.
- Netscape users, select "Save Link As..."; Internet Explorer
users, select "Save Target As..."
- Select the desired directory on your computer.
- Click "Save."
View or download full Racial/Ethnic
Report (1.3 MB) 
View or download
full Implementation Committee Report (with appendices) (96 MB)
Excerpts of both reports are available in html format, including
printer-friendly versions. Read the Introduction and
Chapter 1: Overview of the Racial/Ethnic Task Force
Report are below. Read the Executive Summary of the 1996 Progress Report
on the Implementation Committee
page.
Oregon Supreme
Court Task Force Report on Racial and Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System
(May 1994)
Introduction
Chapter 1: Overview of Task Force Report
Forenote to Nonminority Readers
One conclusion permeates this report, but it is expressly stated only
on this page. The conclusion should be evident to even a casual reader
of the report. Lest any reader fail to perceive the message, however,
we state it here explicitly:
Nonminorities have brought about many of the problems that minorities
encounter and are discussed in this report. Addressing these problems,
and ultimately solving them, is the joint responsibility of nonminorities
and minorities.
When a person or an institution has a problem, a common and reliable
approach to solving the problem runs along these lines:
- Define the problem and its cause.
- Consult with the person or persons causing the problem and with the
persons affected by the problem, and try to get them to agree upon a
solution.
- Implement the solution.
Often the greatest challenge is getting those who cause a problem to
recognize any responsibility for the problem and to agree on the solution.
Our society is filled with persons who nod in agreement that a problem
exists and say, "It's them; not me."
Law schools, bar associations and other entities have periodic conferences
and seminars about racial discrimination. Readers who have attended such
conferences know that those in attendance are, for the most part, minorities.
Not nonminorities, but minorities. The persons affected by the problem
attend. Those contributing to the problem do not.
This report repeatedly urges members of the majority to learn about the
problems discussed herein so that, ultimately, the majority agrees that
racial discrimination in our society is "our problem" too and
that nonminorities must be involved in the solution. Nonminorities have
contributed to the problems that minorities experience, and if the problems
ever are to be solved, then nonminorities must work with minorities to
rectify the situation.
If a poll were taken of all the lawyers, court staff and judges in Oregon,
it is doubtful that even one person would admit that he or she discriminates
against minorities in any way. "Sure," they might say, "there's
a problem. But someone else is causing it. Not me." That attitude
makes the education process even more difficult.
The truth is that many nonminorities were raised in a culture in which
discrimination was common, even accepted. Not surprisingly, the habits
and attitudes learned as children carry over into adult life.
This report, therefore, begins with a plea to nonminority judges, court
staff, lawyers, law school faculty and students, juvenile staff, corrections
personnel, law enforcement officers and others in government: recognize
that our minority population has serious problems in our society. Nonminorities,
who have contributed to the problems that minorities encounter, must work
with minorities to solve these problems. This report contains a number
of suggestions to address the issues of racial discrimination or ethnic
bias at all levels in the Oregon judicial system. Our hope is that the
reader agrees with our recommendations and is impelled to act.
Chapter 1: Overview of Task
Force Report
The Oregon Supreme Court, on February 21, 1992, established the Oregon
Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System.
This is the report of that task force. Instead of opening with our findings
and recommendations, we begin with an incident from an Oregon courtroom.
A Mexican-American defendant appeared on December 28, 1993, before an
Oregon judge. The defendant had been arrested for driving under the influence
(DUII) and had begun a diversion program, but he had not paid the diversion
fees that had been assessed. The December 28 hearing was one of several
at which the question was whether the defendant's diversion should be
revoked because of nonpayment of diversion fees. At an earlier hearing,
the defendant had told the judge he could pay $100 each week. The December
28 record shows that the defendant had been working for a "tree farm
operation." The judge said:
"I'm not going to let him just hold out money. And I know just
darn good and well where that money from the tree harvest went. I'll
bet a good part of it went down South, and that's his business,
except he's got this obligation here." (Emphasis added.)
By invoking this stereotype, the judge mocked the idea of equal justice
under the law and the notion that an individual has the right to be treated
as a unique human being in our judicial system. That is one reason for
some of our recommendations that follow.
We offer no pie-in-the-sky recommendations. Every recommendation in
this report is attainable within a reasonable time. Many recommendations
are attainable at little or no cost. But attainment will best be achieved
if the goal of equal justice for all ever is in the minds of the members
of the Oregon Supreme Court and others responsible for implementation
of the recommendations.
This report is a small but important step. If the efforts of this task
force are to bear fruit, the Supreme Court, other judges and court staff
must be convinced that its recommendations are valid and that the problems
are readily addressable. This report aims to accomplish that.
Unlike most chapters in this report, which end with recommendations,
this chapter begins with a recommendation, the task force's strongest.
Other recommendations are set forth in each chapter.
Recommendation Number 1-1
The task force recommends that the Oregon Supreme Court:
- Publish its response to the recommendations contained in
this report
- Appoint a committee to assist in the implementation of the recommendations
in this report
- Require the committee to report annually on the progress made during
the previous year
- Publish the progress reports of the committee.
The legacy of centuries of discrimination in the United States is a society
in which racial discrimination continues to exist. The Oregon court system
is no more immune from its effects than are other segments of society.
While overt, intended discrimination against minorities1 by nonminority
judges, prosecutors, lawyers and court staff is not common, strong evidence
demonstrates that racial minorities are at a disadvantage in virtually
all aspects of the Oregon court system.
Many of the problems recounted in this report stem from cultural differences
between minorities and nonminorities. The dominant culture of this state
and nation is reflected in its courts. Largely nonminority judges and
court staff do not understand the cultures of minorities who appear in
the courts.
Conversely, minorities—many of whom come from countries with different
justice systems—do not understand the Oregon courts in which they
appear. This lack of understanding is not limited to minorities who speak
little or no English. It is just as pervasive in Native-American and African-American
cultures, in which English is the dominant language.
Conclusions of the Task Force
Report
This report contains conclusions that should dismay all persons dedicated
to the concept of equal justice for all. Among the conclusions:
- Many non-English-speaking minorities appearing in court do not comprehend
what is going on because they do not understand the justice system,
because interpreters are not present, or because interpreters are not
qualified.
- Too few lawyers speak and understand the languages of non-English-speaking
minority Oregon residents.
- Too few minority lawyers practice in Oregon. An example: Only one
African American is a partner in any large Portland law firm.
- Efforts to recruit minority lawyers are inadequate.
- Too few minorities are called for jury duty, and even fewer minorities
actually serve on Oregon juries.
- Peremptory challenges, eliminating individuals from serving on juries,
are used solely because of the race or ethnic background of prospective
jurors.
- Judges handling family law cases involving minorities often lack an
understanding of the traditions and cultural practices of minority families.
- Too few minorities are employed in Oregon courts. Of the 49 management
positions in the Oregon Judicial Department, none is filled by a minority.
- In the criminal justice area, the evidence suggests that, as compared
to similarly situated nonminorities:
- minorities are more likely to be arrested,
- minorities are more likely to be charged,
- minorities are less likely to be released on bail,
- minorities are more likely to be convicted,
- minorities are less likely to be put on probation,
- minorities are more likely to be incarcerated.
- In the juvenile justice system:
- minorities are more likely to be arrested,
- minorities are more likely to be charged with delinquent acts,
- minorities are more likely to be removed from their family's care
and custody,
- minorities are more likely to be remanded for trial as adults,
- minorities are more likely to be found guilty of delinquent acts,
- minorities are more likely to be incarcerated,
- minorities lack experts sensitive to the cultural differences
of minorities.
- All nonminorities involved in the justice system—judges, court
staff, lawyers, law school professors and law students—need ongoing,
cross-cultural training. Nonminorities have contributed to most of the
problems facing minorities today. Nonminorities must recognize that
problems exist; nonminorities must address them with resolve and sensitivity.
Overview of the Task Force
On the recommendation of the Oregon Judicial Conference, the Supreme
Court of Oregon ordered, on February 21, 1992, the creation of the Oregon
Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System.
The order is set forth, in part, in Appendix 8. The members of the task
force were appointed in May 1992.
Why was the task force created? The Supreme Court created the
task force to identify problems faced by racial and ethnic minorities
in the judicial system; to examine the concerns of racial and ethnic minorities
in their treatment in and by the courts; and to propose a course of action
to address the problems and concerns.
Who is on the task force? Eighteen persons were
appointed to the task force. The task force included four African Americans,
one Native American, one Asian American, three Mexican Americans, two
persons of Middle Eastern extraction and seven Caucasians. The membership
also could be described by vocation: two trial judges, two appellate judges,
a prosecutor, criminal defense attorneys, civil attorneys and public members.
Twelve members were male; seven female.
The chair of the task force was former Associate Justice Edwin J.
Peterson. Professor M. Khalil Zonoozy, Director of International
Student and Faculty Services at Portland State University, was vice chair.
Other task force members were:
Kathleen Bogan, a lawyer and former Executive Director of the
Oregon Criminal Justice Council, Portland.
Honorable Nancy W. Campbell, District Court Judge, Hillsboro.
Kathryn H. Clarke, a lawyer in private practice, Portland.
Honorable Mercedes F. Deiz, Senior Circuit Court Judge, Portland.
Marco A. Hernandez, Deputy District Attorney, Hillsboro.
Douglas Hutchinson, a lawyer and Executive Officer, Oregon Commission
on Indian Services, Salem.
Corinne J. Lai, a lawyer in private practice, Portland.
Honorable Jack L. Landau, Judge, Oregon Court of Appeals, Salem.
(When appointed, Judge Landau was Deputy Attorney General.)
Angel Lopez, a criminal defense lawyer, Portland.
Yvonne Martinez, public member, Oregon Department of Corrections,
Salem.
Jeffrey B. Millner, a lawyer in private practice, Portland.
Jack L. Morris, a criminal defense lawyer, Hood River.
Liliana E. Olberding, public member, Spanish interpreter, Hillsboro.
William A. Olsen, a public member and President, Center for Organizational
Research
and Development, Portland.
Nargess Shadbeh, a Legal Aid lawyer, Woodburn.
H. Adunni Warren, a lawyer in private practice, Portland.
How the Task Force Gathered
Information
The conclusions in this report were drawn from four sources: testimony
at public hearings, extensive survey research, prior research and written
comments submitted to the task force.
Public Hearings
In the summer and fall of 1992, the task force held nine public hearings
throughout the state to encourage Oregonians to tell the task force of
their experiences in the courts and observations regarding the treatment
of minorities in the Oregon court system. The hearings were held in Woodburn,
Pendleton, Ontario, Klamath Falls, Portland, Warm Springs, Salem, the
Oregon State Penitentiary and the Oregon Women's Correctional Center.
The public hearings were well publicized in advance, and most were well
attended. Witnesses were invited to give oral or written testimony regarding
issues of race/ethnicity in the Oregon court system. Interpreters were
provided for non-English-speaking persons who wished to testify. Each
hearing was recorded and minutes of the hearings kept. The largest number
of minority witnesses were Hispanics. Significant numbers of Native- American,
African-American, Asian-American and Pacific Islander witnesses testified.
Other ethnic groups also testified.
Survey of Oregon Legal Community
Also, 7,525 persons who use the court system were surveyed by the task
force regarding issues of race/ethnicity in the Oregon court system. The
task force prepared three surveys. The "main survey" was for
lawyers, judges, court staff and corrections personnel. The second survey
was for persons in the juvenile justice system. The third survey was exclusively
for language interpreters/translators in the Oregon court system. Copies
of the surveys are contained in Appendices 3, 4 and 5. Professor Robert
Shotola, chair of the Department of Sociology at Portland State University
and an expert in survey research, assisted in preparing the surveys, and
he statistically analyzed the survey responses. Dr. Shotola's analysis
is set forth in Appendix 1.
The main survey was distributed to 5,438 persons, including the following:
- All judges and court personnel statewide (1,562)
- Corrections personnel likely to appear in court (415)
- Municipal Court judges (182)
- Private and public attorneys in the following organizations:
- Oregon District Attorneys Association (400)
- Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (741)
- Oregon Women Lawyers (630)
- Oregon Trial Lawyers Association (700)
- Oregon Association of Defense Counsel (475)
- Oregon Minority Lawyers Association (258)
- Legal Aid lawyers (75)
The juvenile justice survey was sent to 1,778 juvenile law practitioners
and court personnel. The interpreters survey was distributed to 309 persons
who serve as interpreters in the Oregon court system.
A postage-paid return envelope, addressed to the Center for Sociological
Research at Portland State University, was sent with each survey. Respondents
were instructed not to write their names on their surveys; responses were
anonymous. Returned surveys were scanned and tabulated at the Portland
State Computer Center.
Of 5,438 main surveys distributed, 2,198 were returned, a response rate
of 40 percent. Of the 1,778 juvenile surveys distributed, 667 were returned,
a response rate of 37.5 percent. Of the 309 interpreter surveys distributed,
96 were returned, a response rate of 31 percent.
One goal of the survey was to obtain information based on actual experience
in the courts. The survey asked questions in several different formats.
For example, the survey included several "forced choice" questions,
where the respondent was required to agree or disagree. Other questions
gave the respondent an opportunity to agree, disagree or answer "no
opinion." A third type of question asked respondents to rank their
response on a scale that included the frequency with which they had observed
certain behavior: NEVER (0% of the time), RARELY (1–5% of the time),
SOMETIMES (6–25% of the time), OFTEN (26–50% of the time), and
USUALLY (51–100% of the time).
For questions that asked respondents to agree or disagree, the tables
used in this report are relatively easy to understand. For example, Question
3(a) asked, "Do you more agree or disagree that MINORITY LAWYERS
need better grades in law school to be hired." The responses were:
Respondents who agree "that minority lawyers
need better grades in law school to be hired."
| Respondents |
Percentage Who Agree |
All respondents
Minority respondents
Prosecutors
Criminal defense lawyers
|
22%
39%
8%
32% |
There are nine chapters in this report. Each chapter
discusses one subject area and contains findings and recommendations,
as follows:
| Chapter Number |
Subject |
| 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 |
Overview of Task Force Report
Interpreters
Minorities Working in Oregon Courts
Criminal Justice System
Juvenile Justice System
Civil Justice System
Juries
Oregon Law Schools
Minorities in the Legal Profession |
