Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System

Effect of Historical Events on Criminal Justice System

The United States of America has a long history of racial and ethnic minorities being discriminated against by the ruling majority. Genocide of the Indigenous tribes, enslavement of African Americans, fugitive slave laws, Jim Crow laws, and the War on Drugs, among many other historical events, have substantially influenced the development of the criminal justice system. Moreover, it can be argued that they continue to affect the system’s functioning today.

The development of the American criminal justice system was influenced by numerous historical events and decisions made by the white majority. For example, the early police force in the United States included so-called slave patrols, initially consisting of white volunteers who had the power to enforce laws related to enslaved individuals (Hassett-Walker, 2019). From the beginning of the 19th century, the police force was dominated by white males, with few free people of color being allowed to police the slaves (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). It should be noted that during that time, the police force was influenced by politics, with many politicians aiming to preserve the status quo and keep African Americans as an enslaved minority and other ethnic groups at a significant disadvantage. Notably, all minorities remain the primary victims of racial profiling and excessive use of force (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). Overall, the exclusion of people of color from the force and the history of controlling the minorities shaped the modern police.

The system of courts that applies the law in legal cases and the corrections system have also been impacted by various historical events. The low status of racial and ethnic minorities in the early American society led to courts not being overly concerned with their treatment within the criminal justice system (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). Notably, the decisions made by courts affect other areas within the criminal justice system. Terry v. Ohio (1968) allowed police to stop any person of interest, while Whren v. United States (1996) argued that racial profiling and officers’ prejudices could not be evaluated under the 4th Amendment (Siegel, 2020). Furthermore, the abolition of slavery resulted in more African Americans being incarcerated and sentenced to labor (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). The 13th Amendment noted that involuntary servitude is an acceptable punishment for crime, allowing the criminal justice system to be skewed against people of color (Greene & McAward, 2021). Thus, the courts and corrections systems saw many historical events that shaped them to hold inherent prejudice against racial and ethnic minorities.

It can be argued that the historical events that contributed to the development of the criminal justice system, including policing, courts, and corrections, continue to impact its functioning today. US law is precedent-based, and there are numerous cases, the outcomes of which can be viewed as discriminatory and are considered an authority for deciding modern cases. For instance, the McCleskey v. Kemp case effectively dismissed the value of statistical data on racial disparities in the court of law (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). It resulted in the expression of racism in sentencing being condoned. Such significant decisions continue to influence the sentencing and, as a result, policing and corrections, contributing to racial disparities growing within the criminal justice system. The system needs to recognize the damaging effect of some of the events that shaped it towards equality.

In summary, the criminal justice system developed over centuries and was influenced by numerous historical events and political decisions made to prioritize the needs of the white population of the early United States of America. These historical events continue to affect the system due to the precedent nature of the US law and the apparent lack of new decisions that can address the disparity within the criminal justice system.

McCleskey v. Kemp Case

The McCleskey v. Kemp is case resulted in the death penalty of Warren McCleskey being upheld despite the defense claims of unfair and biased sentencing. In 1986, Warren McCleskey petitioned for his death penalty conviction of the 1978 shooting of a police officer during an armed robbery of a store to be overturned (McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987). The McCleskey killing of police officer Frank Schlatt was viewed as an offense with two substantial aggravating circumstances. First, the victim was a police officer, and second, the murder was committed during an armed robbery carried out by Warren McCleskey (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). It should also be noted that officer Schlatt was a white man, while the offender belonged to the African American community.

In 1986, McCleskey’s defense attempted to overturn the death penalty and ask for more lenient sentencing. A habeas corpus petition was filed to determine whether the defendant’s detention by the state of Georgia was lawful (Kim, 2017; McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987). It was argued that the death penalty sentencing was unlawful and racially motivated and violated McCleskey’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights that prohibit cruel punishment and sentencing biased against underprivileged communities (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). The defense was based on the Baldus study that aimed to determine the presence of racial bias and discrimination in the charging and sentencing decisions. The Baldus research claimed a disparity in the sentencing of African American offenders, with Black offenders who victimized white persons being highly likely to receive the death penalty (Gabbidon & Greene, 2019). Nevertheless, the court dismissed the study results, arguing that there was “no merit to petitioner’s argument” (McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987). Moreover, the defense failed to provide proof that decision-makers in the McCleskey case were acting in a discriminatory manner. Thus, the McCleskey defense was unable to support that claim that death penalty sentencing was racially biased.

The inclusion of the statistical data pertaining to the rate of death penalty sentencing of white and African American offenders was a peculiar decision on the part of the McCleskey defense team. I do not believe that including the statistical data from the Baldus study would have influenced my decision. However, I do personally hold the opinion that the death penalty is a cruel punishment. For the Baldus data to substantially affect the decision to overturn or uphold the death penalty, it should have been supported with the proof that discrimination was present during the arrest, the charging, and the sentencing of Warren McCleskey. The failure to present such supporting evidence is a blatant oversight of the defense team. Furthermore, for statistical data to hold value, the defense could have provided the court with examples of similar cases of offenders of different races convicted of killing police officers. A clear comparison of the treatment of offenders of different races accused of committing similar crimes, supported by the Baldus study’s statistical data, could have influenced my decision.

Nevertheless, evidence of racial and ethnic disparities should be used in court cases to determine whether offenders’ arrest, charging, and sentencing can be viewed as discriminatory. It should be noted that such evidence should be pertinent to the case under consideration. Research shows that African American and Hispanic white populations of the United States receive harsher punishment compared to their white counterparts, and decision-makers should be made aware of this tendency (Kovera, 2019). However, the inclusion of such evidence runs the risk of the decision-makers opting for more lenient sentences to avoid being perceived as biased. Overall, evidence of racial and ethnic disparities should be used sparingly within the justice system and only when directly related to the court case at hand.

Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System

Racial and ethnic disparities are still widely prevalent in the criminal justice system. These components are present in different elements of the system, including policing, courts processes, and corrections. Therefore, to effectively address discrimination evident in the criminal justice system, separate policies are needed for its different components. This essay aims to discuss strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities present in policing, courts, and correction as the essential parts of the criminal justice system.

As a practice of enforcing the law, policing is vulnerable to the occurrence of discrimination. Several strategies can be utilized to combat disparities in policing. For example, police officers can undertake implicit bias training to prevent racial disparities in enforcement (Worden et al., 2020). In addition, the practice of stop and frisk should be addressed. Police officers should be required to record all stops on body cameras and document the race and ethnicity of the stopped individuals to increase accountability for unnecessary and racially motivated stops (Kovera, 2019). Moreover, it is crucial to ensure that the police force does not employ people with distinct racial prejudices. Thus, another strategy to reduce disparity is to subject future police officers to implicit bias testing. Overall, a combination of these measures can help reduce disparities in policing.

Racial and ethnic disparities are also present in the courts in the United States, and strategies to reduce them should be aimed at all agents in the system. For instance, judges should be offered training and education on inequality in bail for offenders of different races. Research shows that white offenders are usually offered lower bail than persons of other ethnicities and are less likely to be denied bail (Kovera, 2019). In addition, lawyers may challenge the selection of certain jurors on account of their race to influence their cases’ outcomes. Abolition of peremptory challenges can be viewed as a strategy to combat such manipulation, with lawyers required to explain any challenge to juror selection (Kovera, 2019). Another disparity-reduction measure is to give non-custodial sentences for first non-violent offenses, including drug possession and distribution. Thus, strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in court should be aimed at judge education, jury selection, and sentencing.

In corrections, racial and ethnic prejudices can be addressed through measures focused on the industrial nature of prisons. Thus, free labor in prisons should be prohibited to reduce the economic value of incarceration and decrease disparities. In addition, the wages of working prisoners should be increased to half or two-thirds of the federal minimum wage in the United States. Currently, prison wages per hour vary from $0.09 to $2.5 (Prison Policy Initiative, 2017). The strategy that increases average pay for prison labor can substantially reduce racial and ethnic disparities. In addition, more comprehensive programs aimed at offenders belonging to ethnic minorities preventing prison re-entry should be established. Overall, measures addressing the industrial nature of correction facilities and prison re-entry of minority offenders are likely to reduce racial disparity.

In summary, there is an urgent need for effective measures to decrease racial and ethnic disparities in different components of the criminal justice system, including policing, courts, and corrections. These strategies should reduce implicit bias among police officers, make them more accountable for their actions, and ensure equality in bail, sentencing, and jury selection practices. Furthermore, the financial gain of prisons should be addressed, and more comprehensive re-entry programs aimed at minority offenders should be instated.

Topics Covered in Class

This course was dedicated to exploring the fraught relationship between race and the criminal justice system. The class discussed disparities between the treatment of offenders of different races in policing, sentencing, and corrections, and most of these topics I have been exposed to previously. However, I believe that the question of capital punishment as a notion and the impact of race on death penalty sentencing is quite divisive. Since the 1980s, the Supreme Court effectively reauthorized capital punishment in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), as the judges failed to frame it as a human rights question (Jouet, 2022). According to the humanistic approach, executing convicted offenders is unjustifiable and is ultimately a “cruel and unusual punishment,” as outlined by the 8th Amendment (Stevenson & Stinneford, 2021, para. 2). In addition, the percentage of non-white inmates on death row continues to grow, with nearly 58% of all prisoners in 2019 belonging to racial and ethnic minorities (Death Penalty Information Center, 2020). Thus, it is crucial to address both the racial disparity in death penalty sentencing and the ethics of capital punishment and strive for a society in which such sentencing is inappropriate.

References

Death Penalty Information Center. (2020). DPIC analysis: Racial disparities persisted in U.S. death sentences and executions in 2019. Web.

Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2019). Race and crime (5th ed.). SAGE.

Greene, J., & McAward, J. M. (2021). The Thirteenth Amendment. National Constitution Center. Web.

Hassett-Walker, C. (2019). The racist roots of American policing: From slave patrols to traffic stops. The Conversation. Web.

Jouet, M. (2022). Death penalty abolitionism from the enlightenment to modernity. American Journal of Comparative Law, 1–49. Web.

Kim, J. (2017). Habeas corpus. Legal Information Institute. Web.

Kovera, M. B. (2019). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: Prevalence, causes, and a search for solutions. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1139–1164. Web.

McCleskey v. Kemp (U.S. Supreme Court 1987).

Prison Policy Initiative. (2017). How much do incarcerated people earn in each state? Web.

Siegel, N. S. (2020). The Supreme Court is avoiding talking about race. The Atlantic. Web.

Stevenson, B. A., & Stinneford, J. F. (2021). The Eighth Amendment. National Constitution Center. Web.

Worden, R. E., McLean, S. J., Engel, R. S., Cochran, H., Corsaro, N., Reynolds, D., Najdowski, C. J., & Isaza, G. T. (2020). The impacts of implicit bias awareness training in the NYPD. The Center for Police Research and Policy at the University of Cincinnati. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, November 21). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System. https://studycorgi.com/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-criminal-justice-system/

Work Cited

"Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System." StudyCorgi, 21 Nov. 2022, studycorgi.com/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-criminal-justice-system/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System'. 21 November.

1. StudyCorgi. "Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System." November 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-criminal-justice-system/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System." November 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-criminal-justice-system/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System." November 21, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-criminal-justice-system/.

This paper, “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.