In an incident representative of the broader issue of racial profiling and misuse of authority in our legal system, former Judge Robert J. Putorti was recently dismissed from his position for wielding a loaded gun at a Black litigant. As reported by the ABA Journal, Putorti had claimed that the litigant, a 6 feet tall, 165 pounds man, had abruptly approached his bench and thus endangered his safety. The judge later admitted that his anxiety was subjective. There were, in fact, no grounds to predict impending fatal confrontation, nor was the act of brandishing a gun justified.
Following the event, Putorti related the narrative to another judge, describing the 6-foot-tall litigant as a “big Black man” and a “large Black man” who had approached him in an “agitated” manner. Upon being inquired by his supervising judge, Putorti further exaggerated the physical attributes of the man, classifying him as a “large Black man”, approximately 6 feet 9 inches tall and “built like a football player”. Yet, the litigant was indeed 6 feet tall, weighing 165 pounds – a figure far from Putorti’s dramatic comparison to a nearly 7-foot tall football player.
Instances like these bear a striking resemblance to the previous cases of racial profiling, such as the incident of a Black birdwatcher being perceived as a threat or the infamy where skittles, a hoodie, and iced tea were deemed harmful weapons.
These cases demand a call to action; we need fewer judges who perceive a threat in an average Black defendant and associate them with the stereotype of a Black Brute. They should instead leverage their role as impartial executors of justice, maintaining the sanctity of their profession.