Racial Discrimination in the U.S. Judicial System - Research Paper Example

Lecturer: Racial Discrimination in the U.S. Judicial System Introduction There is a general agreement that discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin is ethically inappropriate and also violates principles of equality. The principle of equality obligates that those who are equal be subjected to equal treatment in the basis of similarities and that race is not supposed to be an applicable aspect in that assessment (May, Collins-Chobanian and Wong 317). A race is a group of people who are comparatively similar in regards to their biological characteristics and differ from other groups while ethnicity is a cultural aspect that refers to the manner in which a person identifies with a specific cultural group. Generally, racism may be considered as the social practice that apportions merits or attributes values to people who belong to groups that have been racially categorized exclusively based on the race they belong to (Mann and Zatz 3). There are about three different aspects associated with racism including personal prejudice: institutional racism that involves policies that operate to create differences between various races and ideological racism where biology and culture are the justification for the superior position of a dominant culture. One of the characteristics associated with institutionalized racism is petit apartheid which is a concept that entails hidden or informal interactions between police and minorities in a daily basis including various policing activities that could or could not lead to apprehension and subsequent entrance into the justice system. Petit apartheid has continued to be addressed recently hypothetically and also based on practices which could be included in its range of definition with the emphasis of petit apartheid appearing to be attitudinal aspects that have an effect on policing and other choices in the system including beliefs and actions that are culturally biased such as rough treatment, insults and quality of judicial instructions along with other discretionary actions that may exist within the system. Racial discrimination in the U.S. Justice system So that it can be determined if there is racial discernment in the American justice system, there are a number of studies that have considered the main decision points as far as the justice system of the US is concerned. There is general consensus that even though racial discrimination is in existence justice system, the actual structure is not inherent with this vice, implying that it is unsystematic (Wilbanks; Petersilia). Nonetheless, specific cases exist in the justice structure that seems to display discriminatory acts based on race in particular areas as far as decision making is concerned. Racial disparities have developed as a consequence of the procedures that have been embraced in the justice system before real assessments concerning the impact of the procedures on minority groups. In view of racial discrimination in the judicial system, there are various decision points that can be isolated including bails, selection of juries and passing judgment. These points in making decision shall be addressed in subsequent parts of this paper. 1. Bails In majority of the offences that are charged, the judges and prosecutors have broad discretion concerning if the defendant can be allowed bail, and courts could dwell on aspects like endangerment to the society as well as probability to flee when making decisions associated with bail. The courts generally consider employment; amount of time the person has lived in an area and marital status to determine community, before deciding whether the person who is accused has likelihood of fleeing. Studies have demonstrated that race is not an aspect as far as bail applications are concerned when the accused individual is considered as being dangerous to the community or his previous history of appearances at trials is not consistent. Nonetheless, race is not associated with fact that affect decisions to grant bail; for instance, the defenders who have lower education and income levels have lower likelihoods of getting bail and there is a higher probability that they will be given more arduous bail terms (Albonetti et al.). Additionally, white lawbreakers with similar degrees of schooling and earnings as the black defendants have higher likelihoods of being granted bail and as far as bail application is concerned, previous criminal records count more against black defendants compared to white defendants. Nevertheless as far as assessment of criteria for bail is concerned, being a danger to the community and the severity of the offence are factors that are considered more for the whites than black defendants. In general, in particular conditions, the white defendants go through more severe treatment in regards to bail applications, but they are treated in a relatively better manner overall. According to Miriam DeLone (135), it is imperative to promise that governments will abstain from considering race during their determination of bail applications and that labelling people who belong to minority communities as less dependable and more likely to be violent will possibly lead to higher rates of bail denials irrespective of other considered aspects. 2. Selection of juries Throughout history, laws have attempted to engrain racial discrimination into judicial selection processes, for example in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), the law that delimited jury service to white individuals was abolished as it considered it to be in violation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Nevertheless, this decision did not obstruct various jurisdictions from making attempts to preserve the rightfulness of juries constituted by white individuals only using other methods. As an example, In Delaware, selection of jury members was from a list of taxpayers who were supposed to be prudent and abstemious. Even though African Americans were qualified to be selected based on this rule, they were rarely selected since the authorities though black people within the jurisdiction were not sufficiently smart or ethical to become members of juries (Walker et al. 156). Eventually, this practice was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. From the thirties, the Supreme Court has made rulings on selection of jury members making it challenging for courts to continue having racial discrimination when selecting jury members. Additionally, a decision was made that it was not constitutional to include white prospective members of juries on yellow cards and purportedly make arbitrary draws of cards with the aim of determining the individuals to be called to serve as member of the jury (Walker et al. 157). Different states still practice procedures that are discriminatory in the selection of their juries and even though getting the names of their potential jurists from property tax rolls as well as the department of motor vehicles can be considered as objective, in some areas, people from minority groups have less likelihood of being registered voters, to own property that can be taxed or to own vehicles. This results in a jury that is saturated with white middle class individuals while marginalizing the minorities. 3. Sentencing Generally, the rate of conviction among black people is higher than that of white people, and there is not reliable evidence that shows racial discrimination in regards to convictions (Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen). Nevertheless, studies on sentencing have been the center of most interest among researchers who have researched on racial disparity. In most cases, previous criminal records, instead of race affects the decision to sentence a defendant, and when this is not considered, there is no direct impact of race on conviction. However, racial disparities on sentencing arises from uneven representation of minority groups in criminal conducts that are processed officially and this subsequently results in longer or more severe previous records. There are apprehensions that race may have an accumulative impact on convictions through indirect operations via other aspects which put minorities at a disadvantage and that race could work together with more dynamics including initial arrest to affect making of decisions. As far as research conducted between the seventies and eighties are concerned, the researchers addressed racial bias through dwelling on the status of the victim instead the offender’s, exploring historical evolution of sentencing and including crimes which were not addressed covered, like drug processing. In regards to drug prosecutions, black drug dealers at the low level are treated in a more lenient manner compared to white drug dealers; however, major black drug dealers get harsher punishments compared to white ones as they are considered to be creating more harm to the non-white population which is already victimized (Ruth Peterson and John Hagan). In general, studies seem to suggest that there are some aspects of discrimination in some areas at different times. 4. Imprisonment disparities Even though one in thirty males between twenty and thirty four years is in prison, the ratio for black males within this group is one out of every nine, therefore implying that gender adds a dimension to the aspect of imprisonment disparities. Men have a higher likelihood of being in jail or prison, however, the female population of female in prison is also increasing rapidly. At the same time, age also has a dramatic alarming impact on criminal behavior, with about one in every eight hundred and thirty seven people in prison being older than fifty five years old. The rise in the use of mandatory minimum penalties, especially in federal courts, as a consequence of the war on drugs has continued to have a considerable impact on minorities and has led to an escalation in the rate of imprisonment in the nation. For instance, in 2010, out of eighty thousand cases, almost a quarter of all the defendants got punished to some kind of mandatory minimum sentence. Furthermore, people from minority groups accounted for seventy five percent of all the people serving mandatory sentences for drug trafficking as a federal offense. In the cases where there was relief from mandatory penalties, it was more likely to occur for black defendants and they also have higher probabilities of serving mandatory minimums in comparison to any other group as far as federal offences are concerned. 5. Disparities in capital punishment Studies have suggested that when a specific form of homicide is considered, race becomes an aspect of the decision of the prosecutor to seek a death penalty as well as its imposition. It seems that the race a victim belongs to, along with the offender’s race; considerably affect the inclination of the prosecuting attorney to ask for the capital punishment and on the inclination towards imposition by the jury and the judges. When the victims are white, black offenders who are accused and convicted for murder have the highest likelihood of getting the capital punishment, while the offenders, irrespective of their race, who are accused of murder of black victims, have less likelihood of receiving the capital punishment. Additionally, indications of discrimination in regards to black offenders are paralleled by the same kind of discrimination in instances that involve victims of Hispanic origin. Descriptions of the judicial system’s racial discrimination Majority of the research concerning racial discrimination is drawn from theories of consensus and conflict to come up with elucidations of discrimination. As far as the consensus perspective is concerned, the values of individuals are shared with the state, and they are organized in such a manner that will safeguard the society’s interests while utilizing the law as a protection tool. Punishment is founded on sensible aspects like severity of the offense committed as well as previous convictions. Conversely, the conflict ideology considers the society as being constituted of groups that are characterized by conflicting values, while the state is created in a manner that favors the elites’ welfare. The law is considered as a tool for safeguarding the elite and powerful, while punishment is founded in non-rational aspects such as social class and race. The conflict perspective further argues that the groups which pose threats to the power of the rulers have higher likely to remain subjected to social control as they are more criminalized while being subjected to higher incarceration rates. This perspective further suggests that minority groups, the unemployed as well as those living in poverty constitute such threatening sections of the society (Chambliss and Seidman). In considering whether the conflict theory can be applied to cases of police brutality in regards to minorities, it can be argued that police and minorities are supposed to be perceived as separate groups which oppose each other in a dynamic and intractable manner, and that brutality by the police is consequence and a sign of the connection. Even though the police are usually in agreement with the conflict theory as far as representing dominant interests is concerned, they have higher concerns for their individual safety when accessing and patrolling poor localities compared to the representation. In the case of minorities, law enforcement agents symbolize oppression and a constant threat to their day to day lives. Both groups label each other with law enforcement officers perceiving minority groups as criminally threatening and the minority groups seeing police as totalitarian and racist. Consequently, emotional reactions such as anger and fear are considerable dynamics in regards to inter-group dynamics aspects. A different theoretical elucidation in regards to racial discrimination suggests that the representative factors associated with societal conflicts influence control of criminal activities. For instance, discernments of threats, instead of the actual threats, affect the manner in which policies to control crime are designed (Sampson and Lauritsen). Various studies agree with this position, for instance, some have found that non-white individuals are convicted to jail at rates that are higher than in areas where there are large populations of minority groups. Additionally, there are persistent public concerns with whether minorities are a danger to the society and the threats that they pose. For that reason, criminal acts are perceived as issues associated with the minority while race is used for coding specific lifestyles as well as forms of dressing which are perceived to symbolize criminality. Based on this viewpoint, it may be concluded that the underclass as well as the poor are not perceived to be threatening to the elite and ruling class, however, they are considered as threatening to the working and middle class who constitute a huge percentage of the society of America. Conclusion Arguments about racial discrimination in the judicial service continue to be unresolved and even though majority of researchers suggest a lack of systematic racial discrimination, numerous researchers agree that discriminatory acts take place at various points of decision making. Others contend that hidden along with informal kinds of discernment continue to take place internally and external in judicial systems. This implies most of the researches support the argument that discriminatory acts take place and they may be possibly be inherent in social and cultural attitudes towards other races. These may demonstrate themselves in a complicated and nuanced manner which is challenging to capture as far as research strategies are concerned. Public perception of the manner in which the justice system works is also associated with discriminatory acts. Notwithstanding the conclusions reached by various studies, there is common belief among minority groups that they are discriminated by the system and therefore the system is unjust. In order to deal with this opinion, the bodies responsible for exercising powers of decision making within the judicial system should act in an ethical manner while striving to eliminate any hint of racial discrimination or bias from the decisions they make. Works cited Albonetti, Celesta A. et al. Criminal Justice Decision Making As A Stratification Process: The Role Of Race And Stratification Resources In Pretrial Release. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5.1 (1989): 57-82. Web. Chambliss, William J, and Robert B Seidman. Law, Order, And Power. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1971. Print. DeLone, Mirriam. ‘When Does Race Matter? An Analysis of the Conditions under Which Race Affects Sentence Severity.’ Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance 2: 3-37. Mann, Coramae Richey, and Marjorie Sue Zatz. Images Of Color, Images Of Crime. Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1998. Print. May, Larry, Shari Collins-Chobanian, and Kai Wong. Applied Ethics. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print. Petersilia, J. Racial Disparities In The Criminal Justice System: A Summary. Crime & Delinquency31.1 (1985): 15-34. Web. Peterson, Ruth D., and John Hagan. Changing Conceptions Of Race: Towards An Account Of Anomalous Findings Of Sentencing Research. American Sociological Review 49.1 (1984): 56. Web. Sampson, Robert J., and Janet L. Lauritsen. Racial And Ethnic Disparities In Crime And Criminal Justice In The United States. Crime and Justice 21 (1997): 311. Web. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880). Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam DeLone. The Color Of Justice. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1996. Print. Wilbanks, William. The Myth Of A Racist Criminal Justice System. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1987. Print. Read More