Amber Guyger’s Sentence Doesn’t Highlight a More Empathetic Criminal Legal System
“I’m sorry, I can’t explain that.”
That’s what prosecutor Jason Hermus said to Botham Jean’s parents after the jury gave Amber Guyger a 10-year sentence for intentionally murdering their son. Jean’s father shook Hermus’ hand and said, “You fought a good fight.”
Jean’s brother hugged Guyger, saying he did not want her to go to jail. The judge also embraced Guyger and gave her a Bible. Is this a sign of a new wave of racial healing in the criminal legal system? Could it be the beginning of the end of excessive sentences in America or a step down the road to prison abolition?
Unfortunately, it is something less hopeful, less humane, and less admirable.
America has a two-tiered criminal justice system — and while both tiers are bad, they are mostly separate and completely unequal. The most important factor for membership in the lowest tier is race. Like any rule, there are exceptions (especially for rich non-white people), but the rule is nonetheless deeply embedded in our system. Take a second to imagine that the roles were reversed in Botham Jean’s murder.
Botham Jean is a Black Lives Matter activist. After a 14-hour day of protesting, he is talking on the phone to a married coworker with whom he is having an affair, when he claims he mistakenly walks into the wrong apartment. Inside the apartment is the actual renter, a white off-duty police officer, dressed in shorts with no pockets and eating ice cream. Jean claims he yells at the off-duty officer to show his hands, though no nearby witnesses report hearing this. He almost immediately shoots the officer twice, later admitting he intended to kill him. Let’s continue.
At trial, Jean’s explanation for why he didn’t think of the first aid supplies in his backpack was that he was on the phone with a 911 operator, and that his mind was racing. Though Jean was trained in CPR and emergency first aid, he admits to only doing “a little CPR” and a sternum rub on the dying man. The reason he didn’t do more — .
When the question of whether the shooting was racially motivated was raised at sentencing, text messages to and from Jean are revealed (identical but reversed versions of messages sent to and by Guyger). In one message, Jean’s friend complains about a parade for a murdered white political leader who championed the rights of white people. When a friend asks, “when will this end lol,” Jean responds in jest, “When the leader is dead… oh, wait…”
Finally, two days before the shooting, a friend appeared to offer to give Jean a German shepherd with the warning, “She may be racist.” After some back and forth, Jean responds, “It’s okay, I’m the same.”
In America, BLM activist Botham Jean would not have gotten a 10-year sentence for “mistakenly” shooting a white police officer. That is because the life of a white police officer would be valued differently. Amber Guyger’s sentence is not a harbinger of racial healing in the criminal legal system, but rather a retreat to past long-standing traditions. It goes back to people who were responsible for racial terror lynchings, yet never prosecuted. It goes back to sentencings like Brock Turner’s, where a judge was unwilling to ruin the life of a young white man convicted of rape by sending him to prison. It explains how a federal judge could say that Paul Manafort lived “an essentially blameless life” in spite of evidence that he committed multiple fraudulent acts over the span of a decade.
And what about the judge hugging Guyger? Christopher Scott, a Black man who spent 13 years in prison for a murder , provided an interesting take. Scott never received a hug from a judge in all his experiences with the criminal justice system, including at his exoneration hearing in Dallas County in 2009. “I’ve watched all of the exonerations that happened in Dallas County — I’ve never seen it,” said Mr. Scott, who founded an organization that investigates wrongful convictions. “We don’t get handshakes, we don’t get hugs, we don’t get Bibles. They just say, ‘We’re sorry for what happened to you and you are a free man to go.’” If Guyger was the first defendant this judge has hugged, I would like to know why.
The very idea that crime can be solved by locking someone in a cage is, rightfully, under attack. Not only do long prison sentences not make us safer, but they have devastated Black and brown communities across America. Prison conditions and collateral consequences are the one-two punch that creates needless roadblocks to success for people reentering their communities after incarceration. All of these critiques of our criminal legal system are true and valid, but upon deeper inspection, it becomes clear that Amber Guyger’s sentence is not a response to those critiques.
Rather, Guyger’s sentence highlights much of what is wrong with sentencing in America. It would be a travesty to confuse her sentence’s leniency —and the empathy showed to her by the court — as progress on the road to justice for people of color.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.