Depriving Civil Rights

• Date: 01 June 2009
• Author: Phillip B. Bridgmon,Brian R. Johnson
• Published date: 01 June 2009
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016808326220
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review
Volume 34 Number 2
June 2009 196-209
© 2009 Georgia State University
Depriving Civil Rights
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016808326220
http://cjr.sagepub.com
hosted at
An Exploration of 18 U.S.C. 242 Criminal
http://online.sagepub.com
Prosecutions 2001-2006
Brian R. Johnson
Phillip B. Bridgmon
University of North Alabama, Florence
To date, very little empirical work has been conducted that examines the Department of
Justice's (DOJ) prosecutions of criminal civil rights violations under federal criminal code 18
U.S.C. 242. The purpose of the research is to begin a formal examination of the DOJ prosecu-
tions of justice system officials by examining the types of cases that are selected for prosecu-
tion, in which area of the justice system do they occur, and their relationship to the overall
number of complaints. Using a unique dataset, all prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 242 from
2001-2006 were examined. Findings reveal that most complaints are levied against local
police and correctional officers, prosecutions are not evenly distributed across federal circuits,
and acquittal rates are extremely low. Additional noteworthy findings include significant vari-
ations in offense type among justice professions, whereby police officers typically are charged
with robbery/theft while correctional officers are prosecuted for excessive force.
Keywords: civil rights; 18 U.S.C. 242; police misconduct; organization deviance; federal

prosecution
Each year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) receives thousands of complaints
regarding the deprivation of citizen’s civil rights by criminal justice officials. The
DOJ’s handling of criminal deprivation of civil rights cases, however, has been a source of
speculation among journalists, government watchdogs, interest groups, and scholars alike.
Their speculation is that the DOJ has failed to rigorously pursue these types of cases.
Recently, Congress has also become concerned regarding the variation in the number of
cases prosecuted from year to year (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse [TRAC],
2008). With the prosecution of criminal deprivation of civil rights cases on a 20-year
decline, observers are left to wonder if the abuse of suspects is a problem their government
takes seriously. To be fair, without knowing how the DOJ determines the priority of cases,
it is difficult to conclude that the DOJ is ignoring instances of suspect civil rights violations.
This research seeks to begin filling this void by examining the types of cases that are pros-
ecuted involving violations of a citizen’s rights. It will provide insight into the types of
crimes committed against citizens and suspects, providing a typology that can be used in
policy development and implementation.
Criminal actions by police and correctional officers have always been a concern for
criminal justice organizations and administrators. Such actions are usually categorized
under the rubric of occupational deviance, which are actions that violate the standards of
196

---

Johnson, Bridgmon / Depriving Civil Rights 197
expected ethical conduct that are made possible, facilitated, or directly related to the person’s
occupation (Barker, 1983; Barker & Carter, 1994). Unfortunately, criminal justice officials
commit crimes against citizens. These activities, when detected, have a profound and nega-
tive impact on the citizenry’s faith in the criminal justice system, which can lead to a myriad
of issues related to police–community relations. Of course, such incidents also have an
impact on morale, and they question the integrity and the ability of the leadership of the
organization. Moreover, it will lead to a myriad of policy considerations for administrators.
Although there are several mechanisms that federal government can use to prosecute
government officials accused of violating another’s civil rights, one of the oldest and per-
haps the least used pieces of legislation is 18 U.S.C. 242. Section 242 allows the U.S.
Department of Justice to criminally prosecute those individuals operating under color of
law who are suspected of violating the civil rights of another. Some of the more notable
242 prosecutions of police officers have included the 1991 Rodney King beating by officers
from the Los Angeles Police Department (Cannon, 1997) and the brutal sodomizing by
police of Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant, in the bathroom of a New York City police
precinct in 1997 (Tuch & Weitzer, 1997). This study examines the nature and frequency of
the prosecution of local, state, and federal officials under 18 U.S.C. 242 from 2001 to 2006
in the United States.
The Origins and History of 18 U.S.C. 242
The origin of 18 U.S.C. 242 dates back to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, when Congress
passed a series of legislative reforms known as the Reconstruction statutes. The act was
passed to meet the pressing problems of Black codes, which were discriminatory forms of
legislation directed against African Americans in the post–Civil War South (Maslow &
Robison, 1953). The act also served a secondary purpose. It increased the level of power
and the presence that the federal government had over those states (and persons within
those states) who were resistant to ensuring that the basic rights of African Americans were
met (as granted to them by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
which was passed in 1865; Malone, 1990). Even though this was one of the first pieces of
civil rights legislation passed to protect the civil rights of Blacks, others soon followed.
Later in 1870, for example, its companion statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, was passed to enforce the
recently ratified Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to prevent conspiracy-based activi-
ties that were directed against African Americans.
Section 242 can be best described as legislation designed to criminally prosecute indi-
viduals for official crimes committed against a person’s constitutionally protected rights
(Lawrence, 1993). Section 242 imposes a fine and/or imprisonment (and even death) on
those who abuse the rights of others:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien,
or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens.

---

198 Criminal Justice Review
Section 242 is aimed at public officers who abuse the constitutional or statutory rights of
others (Putzel, 1951). In other words, it is designed to deal with violence or discrimination
by state action or government participation (Federal Civil Action, 1965). Nongovernmental
officials who somehow act in joint activities with officials can also be found guilty under
242 (Green & Felder, 2001). According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2007), it also
extends to acts beyond the official’s authority, if these acts are done when the official is
purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his or her duties.
Even though 242 dates back to 1866, initially it was not heavily used to combat civil
rights abuses. In fact, it can be argued that 242 incrementally developed as a viable prosecu-
torial tool. For example, before the creation of the Civil Rights Section in the U.S.
Department of Justice in 1939, the federal government only used 242 twice (U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1961). During World War II, however, the section’s priorities
shifted from labor issues to the rights of minorities, where Section 242 (and other
Reconstruction laws) was used more often to prosecute suspects (Goluboff, 2001). Later,
with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and the subsequent creation of the
Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, President Eisenhower mandated that the DOJ
more vigorously prosecute civil rights violations (Schafer, 2000; U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, 1961). With changes in public opinion toward the enforcement of civil rights in the
1960s, combined with the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the division further
expanded its use of Section 242 as a prosecutorial tool to deal with the increasing number
of civil rights cases in the southern United States (Turner, 1999).
Since the 1960s, a new policy direction has occurred where the division has concentrated
its efforts on high-profile cases. Prioritizing the prosecution of high-profile cases can be
attributed to the large number of civil rights cases and the small number of staff tasked with
enforcing the wide range of new civil rights legislation (Agathocleous & Ward, 1998). For
example, from 1993 to 1997, the Justice Department has examined more than 45,000 com-
plaints, reviewed more than 12,500 investigations conducted by the FBI, and filed 246
charges (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998). It could also be attributed to its overall mission
that includes (a) promoting public confidence in the justice system, (b) deterring police
from engaging in misconduct, and (c) encouraging local officials to police their own. If this
third goal should fail, however, then the division performs its backstop function, interven-
ing in local affairs to ensure justice (Agathocleous & Ward, 1998).
The 242 Process
The 242 process begins with a...