Effects of Race and Economic Status on Punishment of Crimes

Outline

Different researches show that most punishments administered by law enforcement officers on criminals are largely determined either by racial bias or the economic status of criminals. The argument behind this issue is that minority groups in communities as well as those who are living in poverty are likely to pose a threat to the interest of the rich and the majority groups living in the neighborhood. Even when two people; one from each class are accused and prosecuted for the same crime, the poor and the minority race are likely to receive punishment, get extended imprisonment than the rich even when the existing law does not give room for such discrimination. The following paper will critically discuss the effect of race and economic status on punishment received by criminals and show how powerful the two factors; rather than the crime committed, are in shaping decisions on punishment.

Introduction

Bobo (2004, p357) argues that “contrary to believe held by many people that punishment on crime is done fairly to all who have engaged in criminal activities, race and economic status have a significant effect in determining punishments on crime”. Studies have revealed that, race and economic status; rather than the committed crime, play more prominent roles in shaping policy and practices regarding punishments. The objective of the following paper is to critically discuss the question of the influence of race and economic status on decisions of punishment administered to criminals, rather than punishment is based on the nature and extent of crime committed.

Punishment does not always reflect the extent of crime committed

Reports on punishment in the United States have shown that, for the last decade, United States has witnessed a significant increase in cases of incarceration.

Brennan (2006 p.66) argues that, this trend started even earlier because statistics collected in 1988-1993 showed that, imprisonment rate on adults calculated per 100,000 populations, increased from 224 to 351 and this represents a 44% increase by the end of the period. When this figure was compared with the increase in crime, it was found to be significantly high. According to report given by FBI between 1989 and 1994, the rate of crime index had a 2% increase within the same time. Researches conducted elsewhere have indicated that, in 1980s, United States experienced imprisonment rates that were far ahead of increase in crime rates. Such reports have therefore led to the conclusion that an increase in the level and extent of punishments alone is not enough in explaining the increase in imprisonment especially either of a particular race or economic class.

The indirect effects of race and economic status on punishment inequality

“The impact of inequality in economic status and differences in race on the level of punishment is largely supported by sociological theories which have always competed. According to Durkheimian theory, discrimination on racial lines and economic status inequality has indirect effect on punishment regardless of whether the punishment takes the form of imprisonment or community service administered by correctional officers” Cochran (2006, p.30). The argument is based on the relationship existing between racial discrimination and poor economic status on one hand, and criminal activity, which leads to punishment. Research has shown that, both racial discrimination and low economic status greatly reduce legitimate income-generating opportunities, influencing one to engage in criminal acts in effort to either generate income, or as a reaction to the forces of oppression.

According to Donohue (2001), Conflict theory on the other hand suggests that racial discrimination and economic variables impact both directly and indirectly on the extent of punishment. According to the theory, composition by race and inequality in economic status significantly affect punishment when controlling criminal activities. This is attributed to the fact that, the majority in the society as well as the economically stable, are able to respond with more power to any perceived or real threat whenever they are caught in criminal acts and are put in the trial process. The response of such powerful people is likely to overpower culturally dissimilar individuals; a fact that is supported by a theory of cultural conflict.

Although research has been done for many years in this field of effect of race and economic power on punishment on crime, the impact on these variables is still not clear. Consensus perspective argues that punishment is a direct response to the committed crime. According to this theory, incarceration would therefore be expected to be greatest in regions where criminal activities are high. Studies on sociological theories have revealed that, when criminal officers are investigating and controlling the level of criminal activities in the community, they are likely to administer incarceration that is directly affected by race and economic status, both of which are classified under extra-legal factors. “Theories according to neo-Marxist and cultural conflict indicate that, the social structure in place in a given community gives rise to the dissimilar class of people based on their culture” Engen (2002, p.57).

The discriminated race, the impoverished, unemployed population and the minority in society pose a threat which is sometimes real but at other times perceived, to the wellbeing of other people who are culturally powerful and economically stable. Although such perceived interest of the majority race and economically powerful people are not clearly defined, it refers to any aspect of the existing socio and economic order that is disproportionately likely to benefit economically powerful groups in the community. If conclusions are therefore based from a similar perspective, punishment is a function of the majority race and economic inequality. The working assumption in this discussion is that, the minority race and the poor are naturally a threat to the assets and the interest of business belonging to the financially elite group in the society. It therefore means that, even when two representatives; one from each group are accused of a similar crime, the poor and the minority; in terms of race, are greatly disadvantaged and are therefore administered with a more severe punishment compared to the majority and the economically stable individuals, contrary to the set legal procedures. However, this poor strategy of administration in correctional justice goes unnoticed because everybody perceives a correctional system of justice to apply to all, irrespective of race and economic status. Hawkins (1994, pp. 56-58).

Example of application of the cultural economic theory is the way in which people who are economically deprived, and racial minorities are viewed as posing threat to the white; who are the majority. White and authorities in the correction institutions perceive non-whites to be more likely inclined to commit crime and therefore, whenever they are present, they are viewed as indicators of criminal activities. Research has shown that, whenever there is fear of crime in a place, the situation is always linked to nonwhites’ presence. Consequently, theorists of cultural conflict have always argued that, officials entrusted with law enforcement often incarcerate the minority race, and those who are perceived to be economically unstable than any other person. Regarding incarceration, reports from researchers are indicating that, discriminated races that represent the minority are likely to be given prison sentences, more likely to get longer imprisonments and other related sentences than the majority of whites. Henderson (1997).

Jackson (2000, p.102) argues that “According to prior records collected in 1983-1993, by 1993, African-Americans were at least seven times higher in likelihood of being imprisoned compared to whites”. It is therefore plausible for this research to predict that the discriminated race and the economically disadvantaged populations are likely to receive punishment independent of the crime they have committed. However, as indicated earlier, studies on effects of racial discrimination and poor economic status on punishment have always given inconsistent reports. The link between race and correctional punishment such as incarceration has drawn considerable attention for more than a decade ago. Some reports indicate that, the proportion of population comprising of blacks has been the most significant determinant of punishment rates in the United States.

Selection of jury and the associated socio bias

The initiative to equal justice has of late undertaken a significant effort to stop racial bias during the selection of jury in the United States. Across America, economically disadvantaged and racial minorities are usually underrepresented on trial juries handling criminals. This is because the selection procedures on the jury are biased and contaminated with discrimination. Despite the firm establishment of the federal law regarding this issue, there is much progress required because it has not been easy to exclude economically and racially discriminated from the service. Nienstedt (2000).

Challenging the existing bias in selection of jury needs complex gathering of data and litigation with a lot of skills, in order to improve local administration as far as criminal justice system is concerned. Among the successful litigation in this field has been achieved when leaders and community groups receive an invitation, to play a role in pushing for a full representation of injuries. This would care to represent the interests of the discriminated race and economically disadvantaged groups in the society. If this continues, research has shown that it is going to be a big step forward in administration of justice as the minority groups have been underrepresented in decision making regarding criminal justice on one hand but on the other hand, when it comes to jails as well as prisons, the same group tends to be overrepresented. Poor representation of diverse juries when determining punishment for crime results in serious consequences that are not obvious to the economically disadvantaged and the discriminated race in the society. This is because they have to fight the presumption of guilt in a society comprised of African-Americans, and other minorities who are disfavored and stereotyped and sometimes demonized. Nooruddin (2007).

Weakness in the Criminal justice system

According to Savelsberg (2002), whether it is either in the subconscious or the conscious, racial bias exists in the operation of justice system and even for people who may disagree with this fact, they would admit that, perception exists regarding bias within societies of color. Research has shown that, members of the community always tend to compare the number of their own prosecuted and imprisoned. However, it is unfortunate because, prosecutors, officials entrusted with corrections, judges and personnel handling law enforcement analyze their acts and always deny having individual bias. They also reject the presence of bias in their place of work. This explains the reason why such officials will always lack the need for a change in the criminal justice system regarding administration of punishment.

Studies have revealed the existence of bias to be the major reason why the officials will consistently ask the members of the community to simply trust their system, in a manner that is based on simple self-analysis which lacks the most significant considerations. Among the considerations is that, on one hand, biases whether it is racial or based on economic status may not necessarily be apparent to the officials the way they would be to people of color. On the other hand, the officials in the criminal justice tend to be ignorant of the fact that, existing perception of bias in decisions regarding matching punishment with the committed crime has to be overcome irrespective of whether it is real or not. Schuck (2004).

Why society should care about existing bias

Although this kind of debate on the effect of race and economic status in the justice system seems to continue indefinitely, if a society does not have trust and live in fear and a lot of suspicion on the existing law enforcement, other indirect problems arise. Care is necessary because if there is lack of trust, the situation would severely impact the ability of the justice system to deliver its services in protecting the members of the community. Among the consequences of growing distrust is reduced inclination of the members of the community in participation in criminal justice exercises. Witnesses are likely to be hesitant in testifying as a result of fear, lack of trust, strong ties of the community as well as a personal history regarding criminal behavior of either an individual or a certain race or economic class. Stolzenberg (2005).

People of color may perceive law enforcers as oppressors; interpreting the system as an adversary while it should be an ally to them. This may also increase the number of unreported crimes as some of the intimated members of the community may consider as not wise to report on the gang arguing that, the system cannot be trusted; making them also fail in testifying. “The society also distances from any discussion touching on the law enforcement. This leads to the members of the community to find ways of reacting against their neighbors” William (2005, p.27).

Economic power has also been found to cause witness intimidation and this is so evident in crime related to drug trafficking and the gang. Prosecutors, victim advocates, police officers, and judges undertake a struggle with crime witnesses’ intimidation. Research has found this to be the most challenging problem facing criminal prosecution. This problem is spreading far and wide increasing and affecting the prosecution of criminals at the global level. When intimidation of witnesses becomes pervasive, it reduces the filing of cases even when the crime could actually be increasing.

The community that has distrust with law enforcers may also be characterized by another symptom where local juries may not be able to convict criminals even when there is evidence. They would instead render verdicts based on extralegal motivations such as economic status and racial lines. Wright (1994)

Conclusion

The issue of the effect of race and economic status on criminal punishment, where the two factors; rather than a crime committed, influence the punishment and extent of the punishment, is a real problem existing in the justice system. The solution to the problem is for the justice system to directly deal with race and economic bias, irrespective of whether this is real or perceived. The lost trust in the American justice system also has to be restored by having the police, correction officers, as well as prosecutors, make delivery of their services and decision transparent to all. Police officers need to receive cross-cultural training in courts, for them to be sensitive to different cultures and economic classes when handling cases. Leaders, in general, should also ensure that their offices offer services that reflect the equal ethnic and economic distribution of the jurisdiction. There should be frank discussions between community leaders and members of the community to renew trust in the criminal justice system. Communities should develop effective disciplinary procedures for misconduct done by the police. When this is done, any crime committed will be the most important determinant of the punishment administered to the criminals and decisions will no longer be based on either race or economic status of concerned individuals.

References

1. Bobo, D 2004, ‘a taste for punishment: Black and white Americans’ views on the death penalty and the war on drugs’, Cambridge University Press, pp. 356-460.
2. Brennan, P 2006, ‘Sentencing female misdemeanants: An examination of the direct and indirect effects of race/ethnicity Journal’, Routledge, VOL. 10 no. 2, pp. 65-68.
3. Cochran, J 2006, ‘The enduring racial divide in death penalty support’, Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, Vol. 20 no.2, pp. 29-33.
4. Donohue, J 2001, ‘The Impact of Race on Policing and Arrests’, The Journal of Law and Economics, University Chicago Press, Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 87-89.
5. Engen, R 2002, ‘Racial disparities in the punishment of youth’, Journal of social problem, university of California press, Vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 56-58.
6. Hawkins, D 1994, ‘Ethnicity: The forgotten dimension of American social control’, Blackwell synergy, pp. 59-62.
7. Henderson, M 1997,’ the impact of race on perceptions of criminal injustice’, Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, Vol. 34 no. 5, pp. 45-48.
8. Jackson, G 2000, ‘Race and treating other people’s children as adults’: Elsevier, pp. 102-104.
9. Nienstedt, B 2000, ‘Court processing and sentencing of drinking drivers: Using new methodologies’, Springer, pp. 234-237.
10. Nooruddin, I 2007, ‘Blind Justice: Race and Gender in Cases of Violent Crime’, Cambridge University Press, pp. 103-106.
11. Savelsberg, R 2002, ‘Social Problems’, University of California Press, pp. 48-50.
12. Schuck, M 2004, ‘Ethnic disparity in police use of physical force’, Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 35-39.
13. Stolzenberg, L 2005,’ the impact of serious crime, racial threat, and economic inequality on private police size’, Elsevier, pp. 18-21.
14. William, J 2005, ‘CARCERATION: National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision’, Chicago University press, pp. 27-29.
15. Wright, J 1994, ‘Victim-offender race and support for capital punishment: A factorial design approach’, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Springer, Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 17-19.