DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965 | Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1112

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965

Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1112

1112     IOWA LAW REVIEW     [Vol. 49

defendant to refrain from future discrimination. Four cases were dismissed on various grounds. The defendant was acquitted after trial in six cases.148

   Various conclusions may be drawn from these figures. Certainly the large number of settlements indicates that the threat of legal action may itself be an effective deterrent. The reason for the extremely low percentage of successful prosecutions is less certain. It may be explained on several grounds:

(1) that judges and juries are not "friendly" to such suits, (2) that the prosecution is not as vigorous as it might be, or (3) that the alleged discriminations are insubstantial in character. The latter explanation does not seem sound when it is considered that the embarrassment and publicity which is inevitably reflected upon the ... prosecuting witness would forestall the bringing of petty or inadequately grounded incidents before the court.149

If either of the prior conclusions is correct, it is clear "that the mechanics of [criminal] enforcement do not meet the aims of the statute."150
   Also of great significance is the extremely small number of prosecutions instituted under the public accommodations act during the period between 1939 and 1950. This may be due in no small measure to the attitude of many of our prosecutors toward this kind of legislation. A 1950 survey indicated that they tended to construe the statute extremely narrowly, even for a criminal act. Indeed, twenty-two per cent of those prosecutors questioned insisted that the drug stores were never covered by the statute even though State v. Katz151 was still in the news.152 Furthermore, at that time a number of prosecutors indicated a clear disaffection with such legislation. One even commented that "... the civil rights laws should be repealed. I feel that it is a misuse of our criminal processes to prosecute a person for a civil rights violation."153
   A last point should be noted about the disposition of prosecutions instituted under the public accommodations act during the period between 1939 to 1950. The fact that people were generally willing to drop the criminal charges if defendants would agree to cease their discrimination illustrates that enforcement of the statute was regarded as a means to an end. That is, the statute was not generally desired as an instrument of revenge or punishment but rather as a corrective device whereby Negroes would be enabled to enjoy equal rights with our
________________________

148 Goostree, The Iowa Civil Rights Statute: A Problem of Enforcement, 37 IOWA L. REV. 242, 244 (1952).
149 Ibid.
150 Ibid.
151 241 Iowa 115, 40 N.W.2d 41 (1949). See text accompanying note 114 supra.
152 Goostree, supra note 148, at 246.
153 Ibid.

Saving...

1112 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49 defendant to refrain from future discrimination. Four cases were dismissed on various grounds. The defendant was acquitted after trial in six cases.148 Various conclusions may be drawn from these figures. Certainly the large number of settlements indicates that the threat of legal action may itself be an effective deterrent. The reason for the extremely low percentage of successful prosecutions is less certain. It may be explained on several grounds: (1) that judges and juries are not "friendly" to such suits, (2) that the prosecution is not as vigorous as it might be, or (3) that the alleged discriminations are insubstantial in character. The latter explanation does not seem sound when it is considered that the embarrassment and publicity which is inevitably reflected upon the ... prosecuting witness would forestall the bringing of petty or inadequately grounded incidents before the court.149 If either of the prior conclusions is correct, it is clear "that the mechanics of [criminal] enforcement do not meet the aims of the statute."150 Also of great significance is the extremely small number of prosecutions instituted under the public accommodations act during the period between 1939 and 1950. This may be due in no small measure to the attitude of many of our prosecutors toward this kind of legislation. A 1950 survey indicated that they tended to construe the statute extremely narrowly, even for a criminal act. Indeed, twenty-two per cent of those prosecutors questioned insisted that the drug stores were never covered by the statute even though State v. Katz151 was still in the news.152 Furthermore, at that time a number of prosecutors indicated a clear disaffection with such legislation. One even commented that "... the civil rights laws should be repealed. I feel that it is a misuse of our criminal processes to prosecute a person for a civil rights violation."153 A last point should be noted about the disposition of prosecutions instituted under the public accommodations act during the period between 1939 to 1950. The fact that people were generally willing to drop the criminal charges if defendants would agree to cease their discrimination illustrates that enforcement of the statute was regarded as a means to an end. That is, the statute was not generally desired as an instrument of revenge or punishment but rather as a corrective device whereby Negroes would be enabled to enjoy equal rights with our ________________________ 148 Goostree, The Iowa Civil Rights Statute: A Problem of Enforcement, 37 IOWA L. REV. 242, 244 (1952). 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid. 151 241 Iowa 115, 40 N.W.2d 41 (1949). See text accompanying note 114 supra. 152 Goostree, supra note 148, at 246. 153 Ibid.