Michael Oliva speaks at the NACCP and MBBA panel on the need for more Black judges.

Jay McClinton

In January, I co-wrote an op-ed in City Limits, “Why More Black Male Judges Matter in New York City,” arguing for the value of placing more Black men on the bench. Here, I examine specific research on judicial behavior and public perception to show greater representation is both justified and attainable through practical means.

Studies show judges of different races decide cases more similarly than often assumed. Research in the American Political Science Review finds little evidence that Black and white judges differ significantly in sentencing based on their race, reflecting shared professional standards.  Yet similar decision-making patterns do not necessarily produce equal outcomes, as racial disparities in sentencing outcomes and conviction rates across defendant groups persist.

This research further finds that as courts become more diverse, these disparities narrow, particularly for Black defendants.

The shift reflects institutional dynamics rather than individual biases. Diversity changes judicial interaction through a “collegial effect.”  Working with colleagues from different backgrounds broadens the perspectives judges bring to defendants’ circumstances. Exposure to differing life experiences heightens attentiveness to fairness and reduces assumptions that contribute to harsher outcomes. Increased representation also reduces tokenism, allowing Black judges to more significantly shape institutional culture. Together, these dynamics influence how judges assess proportionality, credibility and alternatives to incarceration, producing less severe outcomes without compromising neutrality.

Much research focuses on differences between Black and white people because those groups have experienced some of the most pronounced and well-documented imbalances in the criminal justice system. This does not diminish the importance of Latino and Asian representation, but reflects where the strongest data permits reliable conclusions.

Public perception research explains how increased representation strengthens institutional legitimacy.  A Journal of Law and Courts study finds White participants largely view Black and white judges as similarly fair across both racially charged and nonracial cases, while Black participants report significantly higher perceptions of fairness when cases of either type are heard by Black judges. Expanding representation therefore offers a win-win proposition, increasing trust among Black communities without reducing confidence among white communities.

The need for Black male judges reflects not only concerns about neutrality and public confidence, but also trust among those who most frequently appear in criminal courts.  In New York City, Black residents account for 47% of arrests and 55% of prison sentences; Hispanics account for 36% of arrests and 35% of sentences; Whites 12% of arrests and 7% of sentences; and Asians 3% of arrests and 1% of sentences. Because most criminal defendants are male, Black men represent a significant plurality of those traversing the justice system and are the only demographic whose proportion rises from arrest to conviction.

Greater Black male representation both strengthens understanding of defendants’ circumstances and increases confidence courts operate fairly.  When litigants see judges reflecting the communities they serve, trust rises significantly, including among those appearing before judges of all backgrounds.  Individuals who view courts as legitimate are more likely to appear for proceedings, comply with rulings and accept outcomes.

Broadening representation requires sustained attention to two distinct pathways to the bench.

Judicial appointments play a crucial role. One practical approach to fostering equity is setting aspirational diversity benchmarks modeled on New York State’s Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE) program, which sets a 30 percent participation goal for public contracting.  While specific percentages warrant policy discussion, achievable goals can encourage broader recruitment of Black male jurists. These benchmarks won’t function as quotas, but operate within merit-based selection supported by structured outreach, transparent criteria and regular public reporting. Reinforced by sustained civic engagement, such standards can help ensure candidate pools reflect the communities courts serve.

Transparency can strengthen these efforts. The Office of Court Administration could periodically report on demographic trends within the judiciary, while appointing authorities, judicial nominating commissions and bar associations collaborate to identify strong candidates from underrepresented groups.  Structured mentorship, leadership development and outreach to law students and early-career attorneys can expand the pipeline of individuals prepared to pursue judicial careers.

Elections also shape representation. New York City Civil Court judges are frequently assigned to serve in Criminal Court, meaning Civil Court elections influence the composition of the bench where criminal cases are heard most often. Expanding the pipeline of Black male candidates therefore requires early recruitment, sustained mentorship and professional development that encourage talented attorneys to pursue judicial service. Bar associations, affinity bar groups and law schools play an important role here as well, identifying prospective candidates, clarifying qualifications and supporting transitions from private practice to the bench.

A judiciary attuned to the people it serves strengthens the legitimacy of New York’s courts. Widening avenues for Black men to reach the bench is not simply a performative nod to proportional representation. It increases fairness, reduces carceral disparities, and builds public confidence in what becomes a more effective justice system.