Inequalities in Crime and Criminal Justice - Assignment Example

JUSTICE IS BLIND Introduction Simply put, that justice is blind means that justice is equally enjoyed by all. In a word, justice is equalizer among members of the society. But, is the concrete as good as the rhetoric? The point that this paper argues for is in the negative. And the justifications are recorded in the following three articles that are reviewed in the succeeding pages. The selection of the articles is intentionally limited to those that are about prisons – with corrections being a specific domain of the criminal justice system. This is so because of this paper’s intent to show that at the heart of the system of dispensing justice, inequality persists. Thus, at the outset, our thesis is: justice is not blind. In fact, it is even a domain where discrimination can and do actually happen. Main Body Inequalities in Crime and Criminal Justice Pantazis (1998) delved on the concern of inequalities in the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom (UK) (pp. 54), without of course intending to undermine the importance of the justice system and the social construction of the crime categories (pp. 57). According to Pantazis, the reality of inequalities in the criminal justice system of England and Wales is given a concrete appearance by the fact of over-representation of certain groups of people in the jails or prisons of UK. The article-writer points out, too, that these inequalities are the result of the country’s law enforcement procedures. And, accordingly, these over-represented groups of people are the “young poorly educated males, many of whom have ethnic minority backgrounds, and who may have spent some time in care or living as homeless” (pp. 61). About the criminal justice system and law enforcement procedures: The law enforcement procedures “serve to over-emphasize the activities of the more powerless in society… (for) the more powerless are more likely to be caught and convicted than powerful individuals and organizations. It is argued that not only are the crimes of the powerful under-emphasized by the criminal justice system, but their actual extent and the types of people normally dealt with and punished by the criminal justice system” (pp. 56). An instance of the crime of the rich and the powerful is corporate murder – that is, the deaths that were occasioned by occupational accidents or diseases – that far exceeded murder as conventionally defined (pp. 57). Examining “the social construction of criminal law categories it becomes even clearer why certain social groups are over-represented in the statistics for (offenders). The argument is that criminal law categories are ideological constructs; (hence, not) ‘a fair reflection of those behaviors objectively causing us collectively the most suffering, criminal law categories are artful, creative constructs, designed to criminalize only some victimizing behaviors, usually those more frequently committed by the powerless, and to exclude others, usually those frequently committed by the powerful against subordinates’” (pp. 57). For instance, the definition of rape is “constructed so as to exclude acts with similar outcomes, and these are just the acts likely to be committed more frequently by powerful individuals. It only recognizes forced or threatened physical coercion, and not economic power, deceit or misrepresentation” (pp. 57). Now, about the “young poorly educated males, many of whom have ethnic minority backgrounds, and who may have spent some time in care or living as homeless”: the identification of these profiles of inmates in UK was based on a national survey done in 1991 by the Home Office. And, as asserted by Pantazis, the survey results were strong evidence that very select groups of people are apprehended for criminal acts. The significant results of the said survey are the following (pp. 55): Only about 4% of the prison population were females, whereas in the general population the proportions of men and women are nearly equal. Excluding juveniles (i.e., those under 17) about 40% of the prison population were under 25 compared to 16% of the population. Excluding those who have never had a job, 41% of male prisoners were from partly skilled or unskilled occupations, compared with 18% of the general male population. 15% of male prisoners and 23% of females described themselves as black of Asian, but less than 5% of the general population come from these ethnic groups. 40% of male prisoners under the age of 25 left school before the age of 16, compared with only 11% of the general male population. As many as 38% of prisoners under 21 reported that they had experience of care, compared with only 2% of the general population. 13% of the prison population reported that they had no permanent residence just before their imprisonment. In the above figures, a comparison is always drawn between the prison population and the national population. And, obviously, there is a marked difference between the two variables in a number of important respects. And, coming off from this statistical data, the article writer raises the critical issue of whether this difference between the prison population and the general population is a result of inequalities operating in the criminal justice system (of UK). As if to offer additional explanations that would support the existence of inequalities in the prisons and jails of England and Wales, Pantazis cited three ways about which discrimination happens in the criminal justice system. The first reason that she mentions concerns allocation of pecuniary resources by the government. “It is not difficult to see why the powerless are over-represented in crime statistics: more money is spent on dealing with the crimes of the powerless… (in comparison) to the enforcement of health and safety in workplace” (pp. 58). “(The) second reason is that (the crimes of the powerless) are more vigorously pursued by the prosecuting agencies… (while) crimes committed by corporations do not fall under the jurisdiction of the police, but under special regulatory bodies such as commissions, government departments, including inspectorates of factories, mines and quarries, explosives, railway, and agriculture, and the Monopolies and Mergers Commissions… (And because of this) regulatory process…, the activities of business corporations are not see as criminal, since they frequently do not come before the criminal courts” (pp. 58). Finally, the biased treatment of some people by agencies – in particular, the treatment of young black men by the police – is especially a contributing factor. That is, from the lower echelons of the police (force) right to the top, there is suspicion that young black men are potential criminals (pp. 60). Pantazis’ line sums up the overarching idea of her article: “the role of the criminal justice system is not a means for dealing with crime and dispensing justice. It is more about classifying harms – where the harms of the powerless are exaggerated, and the harms of the more powerful are minimized” (pp. 61). Over-all, the article’s thesis is obviously derived from the survey results taken in 1991. While it is true that the culled data points to verifiable differences (particularly between the prison population and general population), there needs to be some “qualifications” to go along with the thesis. This is especially true insofar as criminal justice system is more than the areas that either contain or cause the inequalities. Simplistically put, the criminal justice system consists of law enforcement (by the police), adjudication (through the courts) and corrections (with the jails, prisons, probation and parole). It is important to mention in here about the construction of criminal law categories that Pantazis mentioned in her article. For one, the construction of criminal law categories is strictly done by the legislative arm of the government (i.e., Congress in US, or Parliament in the UK). The task of the courts, for instance, is precisely to interpret the criminal law categories. Is this a matter of semantics? Or can this be significantly substantial with regards the claim of the article-writer? It is noteworthy too that Pantazis’ inclusion of the three ways by which inequalities are committed in the criminal justice system appears to be a rather abysmal attempt to provide theoretical backing to his thesis (that, as we’ve mentioned earlier, was derived from the survey results. Ex-Offenders, Social Ties and the Routes to Employment Rhodes (2008) writes that a route available to ex-offenders towards employment is social ties. While there have already been literature on this particular topic, Rhodes intends to “(offer) more qualitative understanding of the importance of social relationships and the constitutive and performative functions which they serve for ex-offenders seeking employment” (pp. 5). After spending years behind bars, an ex-offender is set to be reintegrated into the society. And, among other things that he/she needs to establish as early as he/she walks out of the penitentiary is to look for employment. Actually, employment for ex-offenders does not only mean “bread and butter,” but also an effective mode of reducing if not eliminating the possibility of re-offending (pp. 2, 3). What facilitates the ex-offenders in route to employment? Rhodes posits that it is social ties or social relationships (pp. 3). Social ties are actually doing constitutive role by providing support to ex-offenders who are trying to forge a new self-identity – especially a responsible and legitimate identity by former inmate viz. his/her child/children and life partner(s) (confer pp. 5-10). The performative role of social relations consists in – at the most basic level – the accommodation and financial and moral support, representing a necessary precursor to stable employment (pp. 10-13). In reality, however, securing an employment for ex-offenders is never a “walk-in-the-park”. And this is on various accounts: that is, the ex-offenders’ disproportionately low skill-levels and formal qualifications, poor employment histories, and high levels of unemployment. Besides, the labor market itself has exclusionary processes, which include – but not limited to – disclosure of criminal offence(s), the potentially negative reaction of colleagues, the requirement for formal qualifications, and the formal application process itself – among others. In addition, they face negative perception of them by their potential employers – who, expectedly, are either reluctant or simply unwilling to employ those with criminal records (see pp. 2). What happens to those who are unfortunate not to possess the much-needed social ties? Generally, they rely on the existing services available to help the ex-offenders. But this is problematic, since firstly the provision and the knowledge of availability vary between probation offices. Likewise, probation officers are often unsure of employment opportunities for ex-offenders. But, the most significant point to make is that ex-offenders are practically lacking both the relevant vocational training and experience of the application process to compete efficaciously within the employment market that is heavily against them. Rhodes, as he admitted it, relied on the result of in-depth interviews that were conducted in the summer of 2007 among probationers, local employers and probation workers. These in-depth interviews – which Rhodes referred to as The Manchester Study -- were undertaken “to understand more effectively the role that employment plays in reducing re-offending and to gain an insight into the strategies used by ex-offenders in their search for a legitimate income” (pp. 5). Rhodes’ article is actually not directly dealing with the issue of discrimination. In fact, he’s written on how the discrimination against the probationers or ex-offenders as they move on in their lives after their imprisonment could be addressed or dealt with. Nevertheless, there are a number of ideas that may be worth pursuing in the article. Firstly, it’s a very prominent thread of idea that the effect of criminal justice system is humbling – to use the tamest word – or degrading – to use a strong terminology. This is evident in the perceptions of the major players in the labor market. While this may be posited as not the real intention of the criminal justice system, it is the outcome – in actuality. So, is justice an equalizer? Touching on more particular area of criminal justice system, Rhodes made mention about an unfortunate effect of being put behind bars. He cites, specifically, the technical or cognitive retardation of the prisoners. For, observably, the prison system does not have a comprehensive and well-responding system for training and development of the inmates. Thus, again, our question: is justice an equalizer? The route, so to speak, that helps the ex-offenders or at least facilitates their search for employment is more of an indicator of the presence or the fact of inequality between those with and without criminal records. Said differently, social networks are never equalizer but to certain extent are even factors for discrimination. Too Little Too Late Edgar and Rickford (2009) zero in on what they call “a mismatch in our criminal justice system” that is between mental illness and prison. This mismatch is definitely, as claimed by the writers, not theoretical because (pp. 5): The stories of distress cover a whole spectrum that is inclusive of self-harm and even suicide, and the prisoners’ endurance of inner torments as they are enclosed in their cells with nobody on hand equipped to assist them. The prison staff were never trained in mental health care, but they often find themselves quite out of their depths, sympathetic and yet powerless. The families and friends of the prisoners are watching helplessly as they anticipate that the over-all welfare of their loved ones would deteriorate, and will deteriorate more in the coming days. For the authorities (especially for those charged as Independent Monitoring Board members), the issue is not hypothetical as they see the needs of the individual prisoners viz. the inadequate response of the prison system. Briefly said, the main findings of the report/article are (see pp. 2): Many prisons lack the resources to conduct full psychiatric assessments of those they receive. Mentally ill people often arrive in prisons without sufficient information about their needs. Too few prisons have specialist trained staff. Many people who have serious mental illnesses end up on segregation units. There are also reports about prisoners who have learning disabilities and are excluded from many day to day activities. Poor is the coordination between services for substance mis-users and mental health in-reach teams. The consequence is people with dual diagnosis are often not provided with integrated service. Ex-offenders with mental health problems do not have after-care arrangements in place. Subsequently, they are often returned to face a subsequent prison sentence. The principle of equivalence, to which the government is committed, holds that (even) people in prison should have access to an equal standard of healthcare as the non-prisoners. The recommendations that are cited in the article (pp. 10) may be dispensed with precisely because they are beyond the competence and the scope of this endeavor. The crux of the matter in this article is the mismatch that the writers identified. Edgar and Rickford hit the nail on its head when they appealed to the principle of equivalence as being violated or not fulfilled in the instance of the UK prisons’ inability to provide for the mental health needs of a good number of their prisoners. Primary to what should interest us in our task of uncovering instances of inequality right in the heart of the criminal justice system is the seeming inability of the courts to consider the state of the mental health of those to whom verdicts are passed (pp. 3). It is significant to note that one may enter a plea of insanity in the court proceedings. But, as it appears, the plea to insanity has become a legal strategy; it is not reflective of the genuine state of psychological well-being of the accused. Another point of concern here is the impact of sending a mental patient to the prison – which is effectively possible insofar as the courts are not competent enough to gather all pertinent information concerning the psychological background of all the accused. Once inside the prison, with the unskilled staff around, convicted mental patients are becoming or turning to be subjects of disciplinary rather than medical attention. In the two major instances that are mentioned above, the article is very concrete in positing that the prison is discriminatory to those who aren’t supposed to be there. The Edgar and Rickford article/report actually runs in consonance to Pantazi’s line claiming: “Other studies have highlighted the over-representation in the prison statistics of people with mental health problems and those with drug and alcohol dependencies” (Pantazis, pp. 55). Conclusion How can justice be blind when in the course of its implementation several discriminatory instances – that obviously essentially negate the impartiality that is the substance of the concept of justice – are verifiable? The inequality in the justice system of UK begins with the conceptual construction of the laws. Arguably, laws are crafted to protect the powerful against the powerless. This is ascertained by the fact that prisons are peopled more by the young, poorly educated, ethnic-belonging men. The biased formulation of laws is furthered by the practice of the government – the enforcer of justice – to spend less on social services and more corrections, the rigor of prosecuting the powerless and the handling of the powerful with baby gloves as it were, and the bias of the law enforcers towards certain groups of people. Social realities are proving to be discriminatory, in particular, against ex-offenders. But, instead of effecting reform and planning for the reintegration of the inmates into the society, the realities of the prisons are proven to be widening further the gap between the offenders and ex-offenders, on the one hand, and the non-offenders, on the other hand. While inside the prison, a significant number of inmates is experiencing unequal treatment – that is, they are not assured of enjoying what is termed principle of equivalence. Particularly, they are the mental patients who have been convicted of whatever crime. Right at the specialized realm of criminal justice system, the field is never leveled. References Edgar, K. & Rickford, D., 2009. Too little too late: An independent review of unmet mental health need in prison. Available from http://www. Prisonreformturst.org.uk [Accessed 24 March 2009]. Pantazis, C., 1998. Inequalities in crime and criminal justice. Radical Statistics, 68, pp. 54-63. Available from http://www.radstats.org.uk/no068/pantazis.pdf [Accessed 24 March 2009]. Rhodes, J., 2008. Ex-offenders, social ties and the routes to employment. Internet Journal of Criminology. Available from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com [Accessed 24 March 2009]. Read More