Van Jones Sees Racist “Double Standard” in Slager Mistrial

“It is inconceivable that a black person could shoot a white person in the back running away and not be put in prison.”

Van Jones speaks at the Iowa Criminal Justice Summit in October 2015.Matthew Putney/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Thursday, Van Jones, the CNN commentator and former adviser to President Barack Obama, shared his thoughts on what the mistrial in the case of former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager—charged with murder after shooting 50-year-old Walter Scott in the back as he fled—tells us about the state of race relations in the United States.

“It doesn’t say as much about the criminal justice system as it says about the persistence and prevalence of racism.”

“It doesn’t say as much about the criminal justice system as it says about the persistence and prevalence of racism—anti black racism—in society as a whole,” Jones told me. “It is inconceivable that a black person could shoot a white person in the back running away and not be put in prison—especially if it’s on video. Yet “they can’t find anything to convict this dude [Slager] of?” 

In addition to murder, the jury in the Slager trial also considered the lesser charge of manslaughter. But as many as five jurors could not agree to convict even on that charge, the jury foreman told the Today Show on Thursday morning.

“In any other country,” Jones said, “that would be seen as evidence that you have an ethnic subgroup that is the victim of a double standard. And that’s what we have in this country.”

Jones was in San Francisco on Thursday addressing a conference on criminal justice reform. Dubbed the “Second Chance Summit,” it consisted of panels that included former offenders and the business owners who hired them, and sought to encourage other private employers to do the same. The conference was sponsored in part by Jones’ nonprofit, Dream Corps, part of a national bipartisan campaign to cut the nation’s prison population in half within 10 years.

Obama’s willingness to speak publicly about cases like Scott’s and other criminal justice issues, Jones told me, is a key part of the outgoing president’s legacy. It has been “a net positive in terms of getting the conversation taken seriously.”

Obama has “granted more clemencies than the past 11 presidents combined.”

Another major piece of that legacy: Obama’s posture toward incarcerated people. “He’s granted more clemencies than the past 11 presidents combined,” Jones said. “So that shows at least when you have the right kind of president, when the courts and the Congress get it wrong, the president can help get it right.” Obama’s visit to a federal prison last year—the first by a sitting president—for instance, was an important moment, Jones said. But more significant was “the fact that President Obama, who is attacked and criticized for inhaling and exhaling, was never attacked by the right wing for going to visit a prison…That was a signal from the right that the water is safe” for bipartisan criminal justice reform.

The election of Donald Trump, who has called for more “law and order” and supports dubious police strategies such as stop-and-frisk, has alarmed reform advocates. In turn, Trump’s nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)—who blocked criminal-justice reform legislation in Congress—as attorney general drew swift criticism from civil rights groups as well.

But private interests will advance criminal justice causes regardless of what the incoming president decides to do, Jones said: “If you look around the world, what you see is that state governments are less efficient and less able politically to do what needs to be done. And so you’re seeing people who want to be change-makers moving from the public sector into the private sector and doing social impact, finance, socially responsible business, etc. And that tracks where the opportunities actually are for doing good. What the Trump phenomenon does is accelerate an existing trend.”

Last month, Mother Jones’ editor-in-chief, Clara Jeffrey, debriefed Jones more broadly about what a Trump presidency might mean for America. You can read that interview here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate