Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, Research Paper Example

The United States prison system has exponential amounts of disparity in the race of its inmate population. This is true not just on a national scale but also on a geographic one as well. The race disparity, although prevalent in African American, Hispanic and whites focuses more strongly on the former race of male inmates as more and more young black men are being incarcerated. There are a myriad of reasons that this paper will focus on that contribute to such disparity such as social background of the criminal, failure in the justice system (lawmaker policies), and racial profiling. This paper will argue that African American males are being discriminated against in the U.S. justice system according to the above stated factors.

One factor involved in the disparity in race in the U.S. prison system is the inmate’s social background. That isn’t to say that because a certain race is from a certain neighborhood they will end up in jail. It is to say that statistically speaking certain social backgrounds lead people to end up in jail. Therefore, social background is a proximate cause to a life of crime, simply because of opportunity, exposure, and the inheritance of the underprivileged being neglected by government funding in policy making. There is a disproportionate amount of young African American men going to prison and the statistics are made even more harrowing considering “uneven geographic distribution of incarceration in communities of color means that the effects of this situation radiate beyond the individual to the broader community” (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 15). Such statistics further influence recidivism as employment opportunities, family support and quality of life after prison are all negatively affected with the stigma of having been an inmate. This stigma represents long-term effects for African American men who’ve been incarcerated.

In different geographical areas the ratio between black to white is disparaging. In Midwest states “the more than ten-fold difference in rates of incarceration is largely due to a high black rate of incarceration, double that of the national average” (p. 15). In the Northeast however this dynamic has a different reason for the uneven ratio between blacks and whites: there is a low amount of white inmates incarcerated and therefore the numbers are skewed to reflect a higher black-to-white ratio (p. 15). The reverse is true in southern states where there is a larger proportion of whites incarcerated and a lower proportion of blacks incarcerated resulting in a higher white-to-black ratio (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 15).

In reviewing the data it is also important to note the differences in prison population according to federal vs. state imprisonment. Whites are more likely to be put in the state jails while African Americans are more likely to end up in the federal penitentiary, “At a national level, whites are more likely to be incarcerated in local jails (44% of the total population) than prisons (35% of the total) (p. 16). Another influencing factor for ratios is that jail time is significantly shorter than a prison term in federal penitentiaries. As such, the hardship for whites in relation to their recidivism, employment, and separation from family is significantly less for whites than blacks because of this difference in federal vs. state lock up (p. 16).

The breakdown of race in prisons shows an inordinate amount of African American men. In fact the total number of incarcerated criminals in 2001 was 2.2 million. Of those 2.2 million 900,000 were African American (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 1). This severely disproportionate amount was reflected in states with high concentration of African American inmates located mostly in the Midwest and in the Northeast (p. 3). The states that lead the highest African American male prison population are “Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Wisconsin” (p. 3). A more in-depth look as to the reasons behind such vast differences in race disparity according to state may be of importance to understanding the problem of these states having more than double the number of incarcerated African American men than the national average (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 15). Current statistics show that one in every three African American males will be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime (Knafo, 2013, para. 1), and that African Americans are six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 3).

Although African Americans dominate the racial disparity with their higher numbers than any other race, the Hispanics are still under the gun when it comes to their numbers representing a large proportion of incarcerated men. In 2005 Hispanic men comprised a total of 20% of prison population. This percentage has risen by 45% since 1990 (Mauer, & King, 2007, p. 1-2). This translates to Hispanic male prison population comprising 742 in every 100,000 inmates (p. 4). Hispanics are doubly more likely to be incarcerated than whites (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 3). There is a wide range between states of Hispanic imprisonment. For instance, in Pennsylvania there are 1,714 Hispanics imprisoned for every 100,000 inmates. In Hawaii this number drops to be 185 per 100,000 inmates (p. 12).

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the white population in prison.White men comprise a total of 1 in 17 as a likelihood that they will go to prison (Bonczar, 2003, para. 1). Of every 100,000 prisoners, white men comprise only 0.4% (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 4). These numbers between African American, Hispanic, and white tell a story. The story involves racial profiling, and different sentence lengths for different crimes according to geographic location of the alleged committed crims.

There is a vast difference in sentence terms between different crimes. The way in which lawmakers create rules and the penalties for breaking these rules, directly affects the race percentage disparity in prisons. Sentence policy choices are not separate from crimes committed (p. 16). The penalties for breaking drug policies are severe. Social institutions and policy makers are more likely to police a neighborhood of color instead of instituting rehab facilities or other programs that curtail drug abuse (p. 16). As such, arrests in these areas are higher as opposed to white neighborhoods that do institute drug treatment programs.

Drug arrests also comprise a larger proportion of small time users as opposed to higher-end dealers. This results in a disproportionate amount of drug users incarcerated as opposed to the person dealing the drug. If the drug dealer is left on the street then more people in the neighborhood are likely to be arrested (p. 16) creating more African Americans and Hispanics in prison than whites. A change in sentencing laws and policy could change this ratio.

Police are more likely to arrest a young African American or Hispanic man than a white man. In fact between 1980 and 2010 police were twice as likely to arrest the above stated races than white men for the same crime (Knafo, 2013, para. 9). In 2012 the National Institute on Drug Abuse released a study in which they discovered that white high school students were more likely to abuse drugs than the same aged African American men (para. 9). Therefore racial profiling among law enforcement is blatant. Although it may be cliché to say that all African American men are stopped by cops when a bolo goes out on the wire during a manhunt, it’s a cliché because it’s true.

The Sentencing Project (Bonczar, 2003, para. 1) found that African American men were more likely than whites to be stopped by cops while driving their car. This is something known as implicit racial bias (para. 1). Implicit racial bias is a large contributor to disparity in race populations in prison as these stops can lead to traffic arrests as well as drug possession arrests, “Since the nature of law enforcement frequently requires police officers to make snap judgments about the danger posed by suspects and the criminal nature of their activity, subconscious racial associations influence the way officers perform their jobs” (para 1).

The reason for such blatant abuse of power, racial profiling, and disproportionate numbers of African American men in prisons is because the law is against them. This is not a figure of speech. Rather it has something to do with race neutral policies. Such policies contribute and skew racial disparity. For instance “the federal crack cocaine mandatory sentencing laws, for example, have produced highly disproportionate rates of incarceration for low-level offenses” (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 17). Similarly, sprawling urban areas that intersect with school zones are targeted, as sentencing is harsher for selling or doing drugs within a certain vicinity of the school. Thus, African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to suffer longer prison terms than whites who live in rural areas (p. 17).

Mauer & King (2007) suggest that before a bill is made into a law it should be accompanied by a Racial Impact Statement (p. 18) in which the law is set against the possible negative impacts for certain races and potential incarceration ratios. The adoption of this policy may trigger better legislative decisions. Current policies (that don’t offer a Racial Impact Statement) are risking not just a person’s long-term life in prison but their family’s lives as well. Communities also suffer when part of their population is incarcerated or released from prison (e.g. getting a job after prison is difficult, imprisonment effects economics of the neighborhood, etc.). Children of incarcerated parents are more prone to go to prison (hence to continuing statistic of large populations African American and Hispanic in prison after generations) (Mauer & King, 2007, p. 19). As policies stand now, “racial disparity pervades “every stage of the United States criminal justice system, from arrest to trial to sentencing” (Knafo, 2013, para. 3).

The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights says that the United States is violating people’s rights. The way that the U.S. incarcerates people based on crimes that are already out to get African Americans and Hispanics isn’t being rectified or addressed. The last time the U.S. ratified the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights treaty was in 1992 (Knafo, 2013, para. 5).

Although contributing factors to race disparity in prison may be high crime rate in neighborhoods zoned in schools, racism in the criminal justice system or lack of drug treatment centers, there are other reasons to look for as well (para. 6).  Some of these reasons have to do with economics. African Americans and Hispanics in poor neighborhoods are less likely to be able to afford an attorney as so opt for a court appointed attorney. Court appointed attorneys are more likely to influence the defendant to go for a plea bargain because they have a large case load and trials tie up the court’s time and tax payer’s money. Court appointed attorney’s are also underfunded and understaffed (para. 12) “In 2012, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, more than 70 percent of public defender offices reported that they were struggling to come up with the funding needed to provide adequate defense services to poor people. By last March, the problem was so bad that Attorney General Eric Holder declared the public defense system to be in a state of crises” (Knafo, 2013, para. 12).

Racial disparities in prisons between African American, Hispanic and white men have been exacerbated by a myriad of reasons including school zoning, biased policies and policy makers, racial profiling, public defender plea bargains, and the war on drugs.  In fact, the latter of this list was responsible for an increase in prison population of nearly half a million from 1980-2007 (Knafo, 2013, para. 13). Of this increase, African Americans comprised 13 percent of drug users but also represented 46 percent of convicts convicted for drug offenses (para. 13). Policy changes have been taking place such as the recent cut back on the war on drugs but still more needs to be rectified. Reports state that necessary steps to decrease racial disparity in prison may include “fully funding the country’s public defenders, prohibiting law-enforcement officials from engaging in racial profiling and establishing a commission to develop recommendations for “systemic reform” of the country’s police bureaus and courts” (para. 16). Such changes may take time to incorporate but their efficacy to the face of the prison system would be wide-ranging. Not only to the prison system but potentially to economics (i.e. low-income neighborhoods having drug treatment facilities) and African American and Hispanic men being important parts of their community and families. It is yet to be decided if there will be repercussions for the U.S. violation of U.N. racial codes of conduct and policies.

References

Bonczar, T. (2013). Prevalence of imprisonment in the U.S. population, 1974-2001. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122

Knafo, S. (2013, Oct. 4). 1 in 3 black males will go to prison in their lifetime, report Warns. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html

Mauer, M., & King, R. (July 2007). Uneven justice: state rates of incarceration by Race and ethnicity. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf

McDaniel, M., Simms, M., Monson, W., &Fortuny, K. (2013). Imprisonment and disenfranchisement of disconnected low-income men. Race, Place and Poverty: an Urban Ethnographers’ Symposium on Low-Income Men, 4, 1-10.