The Extent to Which Allegations of Racial Bias in the Justice System and Courts Exist in Reality - Essay Example

Introduction The criminal justice system of a nation like the United Kingdom serves a social as well as a legal function. This is because it reflects the dominant social patterns and social trends in the nation and its sub-communities. Based on this premise, there are numerous social theories and models that define the perspectives that people have about the criminal justice process. In one angle, the criminal justice system is seen as a due process model that enables people accused of committing offences to explain why they should not be convicted1. From another facade, the criminal justice system is seen as a crime control system that prevents people from committing further crimes against other members of the society2. Another perspective indicates that criminal justice is about ways of preventing deviant and pathological offenders from creating issues and problems for the wider members of the society who seek to have a decent and reasonable life3. This provides a view of the criminal justice system that supports the tagging and isolation of certain portions of the society that is seen as problematic or inclined to commit offences. This view culminates in a fourth view of the criminal justice system that states that it is a social integration and exclusion model that acts to differentiate a suspect population that it socially excludes whilst allowing the rest to feel satisfied with the operation of the system and blame the excluded4 These four perceptions indicate that the criminal justice system including the criminal courts have a tendency to promote racism in their ranks and files. Due to the fact that the criminal justice system is an interlinked aspect of the legal system, the scope of this racism is not only limited to the courts, but to the police, prosecution services and the courts. This paper evaluates the extent to which allegations of racial bias in the criminal justice system and courts exist in reality. To this end, the paper will examine the processes and procedures relating to the British legal systems and how people of different racial origins are treated based on their skin colour and ethnic origins. To this end, the paper will analyse dominant issues and matters that have occurred in the past and provide information about how they contribute to the core aspects of the British criminal justice system in general and the criminal courts in particular. Court Processes and Biases Britain, despite its status as the fifth largest economy and the exporter of rule of law and democracy in the world is still a place of inequality, exclusion and isolation residentially, socially and in the workplace5. This shows that there are various issues and problems that relates to racism and the use of various techniques of prejudice and discrimination as an end in itself. Since the judiciary as an arm of government is a reflection of the social trends and activities in a society, these forms of discrimination and racism continue to subsist in the British legal system and the criminal justice system. Thus, the courts have a tendency to act according to the dominant trends and also replicate some of these non-ideal situations. A research indicated that the courts in Britain have negative perceptions about people of ethnic minorities6. This is evident in the fact that some of the most popular landmark cases with negative connotations come with foreign names. Anyone who has studied basic British law will realise that many of the most unpleasant landmark cases that have the worst views have foreign names, R V Adomako, The Gosh Principle, R V Ahluwalia, R V Olugboja amongst others are cases that have names other than Anglo-Saxon names. This shows that there is a trend in the court system which leads to the disproportionate conviction of persons of minority backgrounds. This shows clear evidence that there is a disproportionate possibility of minorities becoming involved in serious or unprecedented cases in the UK. Additionally, the media stereotyping of people from minority races and ethnic groupings have a direct impact on the perception of the majority of people who end up in top positions in the courts. Abbas goes on to assert that in cases where a man or boy of African or Caribbean origins or Asian origins commits an offence, most media reports on such cases do not mention the name of the person, but rather describe the individual as a Black male or an Asian male7. In such a situation, most people in the country tend to see these minorities as one big group that is characterised by crime and offending. Hence, the common law maxim of “innocent until proven guilty” is reversed. If the members of these minority groups are presented before the courts, they are viewed as guilty since they belong to one vast and huge family that is involved in crime in the UK. This causes a degree of prejudice in the minds of prosecutors, judges and juries. Since juries play a central role in passing judgements in criminal cases, they are important and vital in the attainment of success in such cases and situations. If a jury is made up of racist or prejudiced persons, then it is almost inevitable that the case at hand is going to be judged in a negative and inappropriate way or manner. The Jury and Article 6 of the ECHR/HRA The European Convention on Human Rights provides some basic guarantees to all persons living on European soil. The ECHR, adopted into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 states in Article 6 that persons accused of committing an offence must be given a fair public trial. There have been some cases where it appears that the ECHR has been compromised in terms of racism and this shows that the rights of minorities are not always protected by criminal courts. In the case of Gregory V United Kingdom8 a jury was deliberating in a case involving a Black man who was being tried for robbery. After two hours of deliberation, a note was passed from one of the jurors which stated that “the Jury had strong racial overtones. One member is to be excluded”. This implies that there was a major problem with some of the members of the jury. They exhibited overt racism and discrimination and this showed that the UK has a major problem of including and integrating jurors from all backgrounds. This is because some extremely prejudiced members of the public might end up on juries like the Gregory jury and tend to create major issues by influencing other members with harsh race-based views and opinions that might cause the jury to decide a case in a manner that is racist in outlook. Thus, in the Gregory case, the Judge showed the note to the prosecution and the defence and recalled the jury. He gave the jury new directions about the need to eliminate all forms of racism and prejudice. The jury sat on the case again and a judgement was passed. Gregory appealed on the grounds the the trial was not fair. The European Court of Human Rights held that jury secrecy is a crucial and legitimate part of the English legal system. Thus, there is no basis to get the jury to disclose what happened during the trial. Therefore, the judge acted in the right way by providing the jury new guidelines on how to deliberate in a fair manner that is free of racism. Although this case upheld the importance of jury independence and the fact that every case must be tried by an independent jury, there is a major inherent threat that persists. This is because in in a situation where the jury is made up of a majority of people who are against a particular race, then there is a chance that a person from a minority community will get a harsh ruling. This is because the point of keeping juries create a system and a situation whereby anyone can be picked to sit on a case and this could have detrimental consequences on some vulnerable parts and sections of the wider community or society. In R V Ford (Royston)9 the need for the randomness of the choice of jurors to sit on a case was emphasised. In the case, Ford, a mixed-race individual who preferred to be addressed as Black was pursued by a mixed-race police officer. He was eventually arrested and charged for an unauthorised use of motor vehicle. Prior to his trial, Ford requested for a mixed-race jury. The judge sitting on the case sensed that the defendant sought to use race as a means to publicize the case and give it an unwarranted attention. He therefore refused the request. It was held that the randomness of selecting members to sit on a jury was a fundamental aspect of the English legal system. Thus, the judge had no point or no means of interfering in this. Thus, the normal method of selecting people to sit on the jury was utilised. This shows that the selection of the members of a jury to sit on a case is not really in the hands of any party. It is based on chance and probability. With a population of under 20%, Blacks and Asians are likely to have their cases heard by White Anglo-Saxon juries. And this will mean, Blacks and Asians are likely to be judged by people who cannot really understand their culture, their upbringing and their circumstances. There is therefore an inherent flaw in the use of the jury system. This is because members of the jury are likely to be chosen in a proportion that will not be representative of a certain section of the British population. This is bound to lead to major problems and confusions that will likely lead to the miscarriage of justice. Additionally, other sources assert that there is a vast disparity in the representation of ethnic minorities in British legal services10. This is because the traditional British legal professions are made up of White males who build a career in the various public sector entities and units. Therefore, Blacks and Asians are woefully under-represented in the Criminal Justice System. Hence, they go through legal motions and cases with little sensitivity and little respect or empathy for their issue and matters. The police, prosecution service and judges are likely to be more sensitive and have some degree of passion11 for people who go through aspects of life similar to them. This will mean that the legal system will be devoid of the necessary level of consistency and there will be major problems and issues that will prevent the British legal system from being applied in a reasonable way and manner. This also gives room for selective justice because some people will be earmarked for better treatment than others. And this hampers the legal tradition that has been upheld for generations in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the best situation in modern British legal system that explains this phenomenon best is the case of Stephen Lawrence, a Black Afro-Caribbean man born the UK. His case led to an independent enquiry that caused the committee to submit that there is institutional racism in the UKs criminal justice system and this has a direct effect on the dispensation of justice in criminal courts. Institutional Racism – The Stephen Lawrence Case Stephen Lawrence went to a London neighbourhood where he was attacked by a White street gang who stabbed him for no apparent reason, other than the fact that he was Black. This event occurred on 22nd April 1993 and no witnesses were seen. However, eyewitness accounts led to the presentation of the names of a number of people. In spite of this, no arrests were made until two weeks after the incident. This raises questions of whether the police in Britain will have been so lackadaisical if the victim was a White person stabbed by a Black person. The police however insisted that there was no reasonable suspicion to arrest the accused persons. However, with pressure from the minority communities, suspects were arrested in May and June 199312. This bore proof to the fact that the police were not really keen on dealing with the case. Aside the lukewarm attitude of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service also dragged its feet in dealing with the case. On July 29, 1993, the CPS dropped charges made against the prime suspects due to the lack of evidence. This led to so many protests and issues and the authorities had to act. In the mind of an ordinary person, the police and prosecution service and judiciary ought to dispense justice and they ought to be seen to be dispensing justice. However, in the Stephen Lawrence case, it appears that the police was forced to take action to be “seen” to be dispensing justice. And this was in the form of pressure from the minority communities which included demonstrations from the Black and Caribbean communities in the country which led to major changes and modification of the way they dealt with the cases at hand. Eventually, the authorities were forced to carry out an Internal Review in August 1993. On the 16th of April 1994, it was held that there was insufficient evidence to convict the suspects who had been arrested through various means. However, prosecution could not go on due to the lack of evidence. Stephen Lawrences family opened a private prosecution in April 1994 when the case was closed. The family got no legal aid. This shows that there was massive discrimination in the dispensing of legal aid in the UK and Black people and minorities were the most affected. However, the family set up a fighting fund and the fund raised money to pay for forensic evidence analysis. The implication is that the Lawrence family had to take up justice by themselves. And this shows that the UKs legal system is one that is not supportive of minorities and it appears to be helping minorities when in reality, there is a minor effort they are making to deal with an issue. In spite of this effort, the charges were dropped due to the lack of evidence and in April 23 1996, the suspects were acquitted. In 1997, the MacPherson Commission was formed to investigate the matter and come up with recommendations on how the case should have been dealt with. The Mcpherson Commission investigated the reasons behind the failures to properly investigate the killing of Stephen Lawrence13. The Committee identified that the Metropolitan Police was infected with “institutional racism”. And by extension, the criminal court system is likely to be influenced by this institutional racism. This is because the criminal courts do not take part in the arrests and other field works. Thus, if the people handling these processes and activities were biased and were only pursuing racism, the courts are directly affected and they perpetrate the cycle of racism. Also, the MacPherson Committee recommended that using the “double jeopardy” principle to shield the accused persons would be unfair. Hence they asked for a retrial. They also recommended that race relations acts must apply more critically to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service must make extensive effort to expose racially motivated crimes14. In June 2006, after a cold case review was conducted and a full re-examination of evidence was done, the case was retried in September 2010 and the two lead suspects were convicted and found guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence in January 2012. This had been an uphill struggle that lasted for almost 20 years. And the question remains, will the murder of Stephen Lawrence had lasted that long if he was the son of an Anglo-Saxon nobleman? Using this variation of the “but for” test, it is apparent that the criminal justice system, aside its inherent limitation of appointing juries that are often of majority extractions also drag their feet in dealing with cases and issues that need urgent attention. And this is based on the skin colour and origins of people involved in the issues at hand. Statistical Evidence Aside the exceptional case involving Stephen Lawrence, there have been other cases and issues that show clearly that racism in the criminal justice system is rife. And this shows that there is something that goes on that creates a system whereby the criminal courts seem to sentence Blacks and Brown skinned persons to prison more often than White people. There are three young African-Caribbean men aged 18 – 24 in prison for every one at a Russell Group University15. This implies that there is a major trend towards the jailing and imprisonment of people of certain origins because they are seen as people who are troublemakers and this leads to some kind of racist oriented approach to providing justice in cases involving such persons. Minority ethnic people remain over-surveilled and under-protected within all states of the British Criminal Justice System16. This implies that the criminal justice system of Britain is one that has been modified in a way and manner that it targets people of certain minority groups unfairly. Sviensson goes on to state that in England and Wales, Black people are stopped and searched seven times the rate of White people. This is because Black people are targeted and given an extra-harsh treatment because they are seen as the problem, rather than a part of the solution. Asian people are twice as much to be stopped and searched by the police than White people. The study of Sviensson shows that 30% of all Black men living in Britain are on the DNA database, whereas only 10% of White men are on the database. Interestingly, Black people are just 2.2% of the British population, yet, 15% of the prison population is Black and this level of disproportion beats the American criminal justice system that has world-wide acclaim for being racist in outlook17. This shows that although the British criminal justice system is meant to promote and enhance the rights of people and provide equal justice to all persons, the British criminal justice system is disproportionately against Black people. If Black people and other minorities are always jailed and convicted, then it is logical to state that there is something fundamentally wrong in the legal system. With the level of hypocrisy shown in a case like the Stephen Lawrence case, then there is a logical grounds to say that the British criminal justice system has major loopholes and issues that causes it to move in the direction of the conviction of minorities. The MacPherson Report stated that racism is a sort of insensitivity to the feelings of members of ethnic minorities: it is a cultural failure. This implies that racism is seen as a situation where the authorities and members of the criminal justice system fail to meet the needs and understand the expectation of other minorities in the UK. This implies that there is a major cultural problem and issue that needs to be addressed through various means and methods. Institutional racism is about stereotyping, it is about being unwitting; it is about ignorance; it is about failing to recognise a racist/hate crime; it is about not listening or understanding or not being interested in listening or understanding; it is about white pretence and Black people being seen as a problem18. This implies that there is a major issue with the perception of these members in the criminal justice system who stereotype and pass judgements and views even before the case goes through due process. It is about the criminal courts being inconsiderate and insensitive to the needs and experiences of members of the minority groups. Admission of the Accusation of Institutional Racism Once the British authorities have admitted the accusation of harbouring institutional racism, then there is a major call for concern. Then there is reasonable grounds to believe that racism and discrimination against minorities in the British criminal justice system is not a farce, but rather a fact. The MacPherson report stated categorically that the institutional racism was a collective failure of the the parties in the criminal justice system to provide an appropriate professional service because of their colour, culture and ethnic origins19. And this can be seen in the processes, attitudes, and behaviours which amount to discrimination20. The Home Secretary also responded and stated that in every institution, there must be a proactive effort to deal with racism. Thus, there is a clear admission of guilt by the British Criminal Justice system and this shows that the complaint of racism is fact and not fiction or a made-up claim by a section of the British population. Counter Arguments In spite of the clear issue of racism in the British legal system and the the criminal courts, there are some very credible counter claims which indicate that some of the actions taken by the British authorities are legitimate and without them, there is no possibility of dealing with crime in the country. Ward et al stated that “White juries are perceived to be less fair to Blacks than to White people. It is the quality of visible difference and the prejudice that it may encounter that singles out race for different treatment from other special interest groups”21. This implies that in every society, there is bound to be a social strata that will make way for various levels of social and racial engagements. This means that in every court case, there will be people who are minorities and there will be larger groups of people. Thus, singling out race-based claim is just part of a legal system. This is because there is no better means of dealing with cases than to use juries. And the only reasonable grounds for selecting juries is to do so randomly. Besides, it is apparent that irrespective of whoever sits on a jury, there will be individual and social differences. For instance, if a preacher of a small sect of people is to be judged, there is a general tendency that the jury members will not be part of the sect. Thus, there is no clear way that they will understand the preacher. Hence, it can be stated that the group will be alienated. However, should the criminal justice system be reformed to deal with all such cases and every socially different group? Based on this, Ward et als argument of dealing with racism as a part of a broader context of the status quo seem to be logical. Prime Minister David Cameron stated after the London riots which included many minorities that “... this is not about poverty, its about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority and says everything about rights and nothing about responsibilities....”22. This implies that the upbringing and the training that these people from the minorities get might not be compatible with the mainstream British society and rules. Imagine a person who grew up in a nation like Somalia where there was no central government and joining a form of a gang was the norm, rather than the exception. Such a person is likely to get indicted for violent conduct than another person who grew up in Britain where everything was stable and reasonable. Thus, the probabilities might just be a reflection of the circumstances at hand and a reflection of the kind of attitude that people have in foreign nations and foreign lands. This means that there is no point in indicting the judicial system for being wrong or negative. This is because the only way an institution like the British judiciary can protect its citizens is to examine facts and statistics to predict future trends and patterns. Thus, there is no point in trying to defend or accuse the authorities for using that approach to deal with the high rates of crime in the country Conclusion From the analysis, it is evident that the judiciary has a major problem and issue inherent in its operations and this relates to the jury selection and composition. This is because the jury is selected randomly and there is a big probability that it is going to be made up of White people rather than a fair representation of minorities. Thus, this tradition cannot guarantee fair trials in courts. Aside the inherent issue with juries, there is an inherent issue in the broad criminal justice system that affects the criminal courts. This include the fact that the authorities in charge of making arrests and detentions are often racist and hence end up convicting more people from the minority groups rather than majority groups. This therefore keep Black people and Asians disadvantaged. The case of Stephen Lawrence showed that there is institutionalised racism in the British legal system and there is a general tendency to quickly convict minorities and a spate of delays in granting justice where perpetrators are White. In spite of this general trend, there are inherent issues like a broad range of prejudice which is seen as part of human nature. This is because society is dynamic. And in each point, social issues differentiate people into minorities and majorities. Thus, some authorities argue for the logical view of racism as a natural part of the evolution of the British society. Others like Prime Minister Cameron argue that the problem with minorities being arrest has to do with cultural issues that glorify violence and crime and such acts are not compatible with the British legal system. Bibliography Abbas, Tahir. “Race, Ethnicity and the Courts: A Reviewing of Existing and Ongoing Research” Internet Journal of Criminology 2004. Cameron David. London Riots – 2011 David Camerons Speech to Parliament. London: The Stationery Office. 2011. Geary Adam and Morrison Wayne. Common Law Reasoning and Institutions London: University of London. 2012. Green David. Institutional Racism and the Police: Fact or Fiction: Trowbridge: Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press. 2000. Law Ian. Racism & Ethnicity London: Routledge, 2012. Oakley, Robin. Institutional Racism: Lessons from the UK” Budapest: European Roma Rights Centre Phillips Coretta and Bowling Benjamin. “Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Developing Minority Perspectives” British Journal of Criminology 43(2) pp269 – 290 Routledge-Cavendish. English Legal System London: Taylor and Francis. 2012 Sviensson, Keith. Criminal Justice V Racial Justice: Minoirity Ethnic Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System London: Runnymede. 2012. Ward Richard, Wragg Amanda and Akhtar Amanda. Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. Cases Gregory V United Kingdom R V Ford (Royston) [1989] 3 ALL ER 445 Read More