Prejudices of Real and Imagined Criminal Behaviors - Research Paper Example

Prejudices Perpetuate Real and Imagined Criminal Behaviors One of the glaring issues in criminal justice today is the issue of racial discrimination. It seems clear that crime and deviance is, to a strong degree, a product of this country’s inherent tradition of prejudice against minorities. This is a social injustice that has been intricately and perpetually woven into the fabric of society from even before the nation’s inception. Indigenous people discovered living in established settlements on the continent, possessing different skin tones and customs from the European settlers who discovered them, were instantly labeled ‘savage’ and ‘uncivilized’ simply because of these differences. As a result of these types of labels, these people were instantly placed on a significantly lower social level than the Europeans within the minds of the Europeans who eventually gained dominance. This mindset lives on today in the European-styled society we perpetuated. Overt discriminatory practices during all phases of the criminal justice system concerning ethnic minorities, especially those of African-American or Hispanic descent, have been well-documented. The recently increased implementation of law enforcement measures which are exclusively aimed at minorities and immigrants through tactics such as racial profiling have exacerbated long standing tensions with police agencies. These interactions are becoming increasingly tense as evidenced by a proliferation of physical and verbal abuse towards minorities and immigrants, a growing mutual distrust and an escalating threat of violence. Of course, crime can occur in fully homogenized societies and a tendency to commit crimes in impoverished areas is understood to be the result of economic rather than racial issues. However, racist perceptions are reflected in laws, traditions, and hiring practices causing minorities to be disproportionately represented in depressed neighborhoods. This is a rather obvious explanation for social injustice creating crime. An additional reason could be that because minorities are targeted as potential criminals, it is generally perceived by the majority that simply being a minority places the individual under suspicion. The U.S. incarcerates more of its population per capita than any other industrialized country. Currently, more than two million prisoners are jailed in local, state or federal facilities. It is not just the number of prisoners that is increasing, but the ratio of prisoner to free population is widening as well. Approximately 10 years ago, there were about 703 prisoners in every block of 100,000 citizens. That number exceeds 715 today. Arguments that racial discrimination exists within the justice system begin with the fact that, when categorized according to ethnicity, there are significantly more minorities found in prison than white people. “At midyear 2003 there were 4,834 black male prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States in prison or jail, compared to 1,778 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 681 white male inmates per 100,000 white males” (“Prison Statistics” 2006). As compared to constituents of the socially dominant white-male faction, black men are much more likely even than Hispanics to be detained, questioned, and searched by law enforcement officials. However, Hispanics, particularly in the southern states, are beginning to gain a lead thanks to a new anti-immigration culture. Once arrested, minority members are also more likely to suffer police brutality and are more likely to be held in jail while waiting for their trial date instead of getting the opportunity to post bond. When tried for a crime, they face a higher probability for a guilty verdict and are less apt to serve their sentences through alternative methods such as community service. In addition, they are “more likely to be sentenced to longer prison terms, less likely to be granted parole, and when convicted of capital offenses, they are more likely to be executed, especially for capital offenses against dominants” (Sidaneus & Veniegas, 2000). This statistical data demonstrates the vast racial divide that has existed within our system of justice. Racism as an ideology is illogical in principle and diverse in practice. This makes it difficult to explain within a single definition. Racism exists in all societies to some degree and is reflected in all its attitudes, behavior, and institutions. The concept of racism may be conscious as in the man who openly states he hates people of a given ethnicity or it can be subconscious as in the woman who suddenly feels fear after she notices a black man standing on the corner behind her. It can be expressed in actions or attitudes initiated by individuals, groups, or institutions. It is characterized by attitudes that condone treating human beings unjustly because of their skin pigmentation. Racism is rooted in dysfunctional belief systems that have developed out of distorted perceptions which were formed over a period of time. Thus, we cannot ignore the significant role of the socio-cultural environment in shaping perceptual patterns regarding racism if we intend to confront it. The duty of humanitarian, social and political interests is to make certain all people regardless of cultural background or skin color are recognized and treated equitably in the American criminal justice system. Racism within society breeds a lack of opportunity for minorities in the work and educational environment and a lack of opportunity in the educational system adds to the high numbers of minorities now living unproductive lives in prison. The term ‘racial profiling’ is typically applied in the enforcement arena, but can be equally applied in the social realm as has become a heavy issue in the justice system. Prior to the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001, most people associated the term ‘racial profiling’ with the common but often unspoken practice of police officers stopping and harassing young minority drivers at a much higher percentage rate than with white drivers. Regardless of whether they were doing anything wrong, officers looking for an excuse to arrest might find something incriminating in the trunk or provoke a driver into lashing out. At worst, they received higher rates of traffic fines and suffered delayed schedules as a result of such practices. Minority citizens of all ages correctly complained that they were being disproportionately detained and asked non-pertinent questions by the police for nothing more than the ‘crime’ of ‘driving while black.’ The practice of racial profiling is officially illegal, but police officers continue to point to statistics that seem to support its use (Turvey, 1998). Unfortunately, these statistics are a bit like trying to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg. The concept of criminal profiling, as opposed to racial profiling, has actually been used officially to successfully assist law enforcement in preventing major crime. This is because the specific habits and behaviors of individual criminals can be tracked and predicted as a means of achieving capture and neutralization. Offender profiles, a series of behavioral and personal characteristics related to specific types of offenses, are also analyzed as a means of assisting enforcement officials in recognizing specific behavior patterns that may lead to future crime such as a serial car burglar escalating his crimes to car theft. However, criminal profiling progresses beyond the acceptable and into racial profiling when the defining characteristics used include ethnicity, religion or race such as suspecting all groups of Hispanic teenagers hanging out near an old convenience store. Racial profiling occurs as officers begin to recognize the greater number of minorities in prison than white. They link this observation with a higher prevalence of crime among these minority groups and begin suspecting criminals without cause simply because they are a member of that minority group. Few officers seem to take into account the possibility that higher numbers may be simply a result of eagerness to arrest or other factors (Turvey, 1998) and the behavior would seem to be condoned by the precedent of criminal profiling. In contrast to such shaky informal mental statistics, there is overwhelming evidence that racial profiling practiced at an official or pseudo-official level does nothing but make matters worse on a societal level. It does this by absorbing enforcement assets to arrest and prosecute on spurious claims rather than making these resources available elsewhere, it angers all those who might otherwise support efforts against crime and it significantly undermines the American ideals of equality, freedom and the right to fair treatment. When the public sees the justice system actively engaging in racial profiling as a means of deterring crime, they begin to mimic this type of behavior. The majority of adult American citizens living prior to September 11, 2001 would have agreed that discrimination on the basis of race is morally and ethically wrong and unjustifiable. In many cases, individual American citizens had not considered how they felt about the Muslim religion or the races of the Middle East. However, the terrorist attacks shocked the nation out of its perceived immunity from danger and thus seemed to justify greater caution. Those who felt a greater sense of threat were more eager to sacrifice personal freedom and individual rights in the form of racial profiling if this could provide a stronger perception of protection. Had the terrorists not been of obvious Arab descent, the profiling of airplane passengers and the widespread fear of this particular ethnic group would not have been a matter of discussion (Polakow-Suransky, 2005). After the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed in 1995, no efforts were made to vilify or racially profile young white men, yet almost every individual with Middle Eastern features that has been detained at airports, kicked-off airplanes, had their bags searched or suffered ‘stare-downs’ with no provocation is not a terrorist though they are suspected of being so. Now that that furor is settling down somewhat, the focus has shifted to Hispanics and the problems of the Southern U.S. border. Discrimination, no matter how it can be rationalized, causes the victimization of minority groups who are frequently already subdued because of their minority. When used to guide the practices and policies of ‘official’ organizations, discrimination of a specific group can lead to malicious stereotyping. Generalizations are then applied unilaterally to the race, which causes significant issues when witnessed and duplicated by the public (Hall, 2004). Common decisions of everyday life regarding which candidate to hire, what people will have every pocket invasively explored and which people are allowed to walk down the street without being followed by police or glared at by citizens are based on the cultural attitudes that are set by enforcement agencies. For example, it is commonly assumed that black students will be less able to make the transition into college than white students and Hispanic students won’t even have the desire to make the effort, but actual scholastic comparisons indicate the minority groups are proportionately better prepared for the challenges ahead. If a person is physically beaten because they appear Hispanic by a member of the public, that is termed racism, but when that same person is detained by security officers at the mall for carrying a shopping bag, it is called a necessary security measure. The change in terminology doesn’t make it right nor do some elements of society succeed in making the distinction. Even those who do understand the difference between official action and unofficial harassment have a tendency to fall in line with the prevalent modes of thinking in which minorities are considered suspicious characters regardless of the context (Hall, 2004). While the average citizen might ordinarily avoid any overt acts of racial profiling, impactful events such as shattering the nation’s sense of security have changed public sentiment. Minorities would likely answer differently than whites regarding whether this action was taking place and thus might reasonably expect some support from other minority communities, who also frequently suffer from immediate suspicion and anger. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Black persons are no less likely than is any other ethnic group to judge others by racial origin or cultural affiliation. It seems the ability to recognize racial discrimination only exists when it is one’s own race being maltreated. According to Urban League President Hugh Price, “…whenever people speak in favor of racial profiling, they always favor its use against some other group, not theirs” (cited in Polakow-Suransky, 2005: 202). Public surveys have continued to indicate widespread public support of racial profiling of otherwise non-suspicious persons even among the heavily persecuted African American community. Only recently has the trend begun to abate thanks to the hard work of black political and religious leaders as well as numerous civil rights advocates. The strength of the sentiment among the black population is particularly surprising in that these people do not seem able to draw the parallels. Of all the questions raised by the debate regarding racial profiling in the social realm, this has to be the most perplexing. Former NAACP President Frank Mesiah put it this way, “It is unfortunate that it would be African Americans that have suffered this type of terror and profiling at the hands of police…to then support this type of profiling” (cited in Polakow-Suransky, 2005: 203). While this seems to be highly hypocritical, the answer regarding why black people do not draw parallels between the profiling of other ethnicities and their own experience may be attributed to some of the rest of America’s willingness to vilify groups such as the Hispanic migrant worker. The threat that the immigrant worker may somehow reduce the already limited ability of the African American man to earn a decent living is sufficient to sever any feelings of support or solidarity. One of the first people to write about why the concept of the outsider as evil, however he happens to be framed, is largely the result of their representation in the media was Edward Said, who wrote about the concept of Orientalism. Said argues that the concept of the Orient as it has been created within the minds of the West is so deeply ingrained in Western life that it ‘unconsciously’ manifests itself through the intertextual context and is indistinguishable to the Western writer from his own ‘pure’ thought. It follows that this ‘unconscious’ element of the writer is also unconscious on the part of the reader and that these concepts are equally applicable to other modes of communication such as television, film and news reporting. Said indicated that minorities frequently are only given negative or at best peripheral associations. “There exists here an almost unanimous consensus that politically he [the Oriental] does not exist, and when it is allowed that he does, it is either as a nuisance or as an Oriental. The web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism, dehumanizing ideology holding in the Arab or the Muslim is very strong indeed, and it is this web which every Palestinian has come to feel as his uniquely punishing destiny” (Said, 1979: 27). These concepts are as applicable to the experience of the individual of Hispanic identity in this country as they are to Said’s Arabs. Although always a part of the general landscape in the regions where they are today most vilified, Hispanics have struggled to achieve even the most marginal role in American society. Said points out how everything reported somehow makes the minority race seem backward, simple or non-threatening. This is often achieved by placing them either in the context of a passive action or something somehow threatening under the surface. This was accomplished through the process of comparable linguistics, in which everything is placed in a dominant-recessive opposition. A side effect of this process is the generalization of everything into a single group, ignoring hints of diversity. This had, and continues to have, a negative effect upon the Western world’s perception as they tend to understand a multitude of cultures in terms of a single identity. Inequality is the practically unavoidable by-product of two prevailing dynamics, prejudice on the individual level and a political disparity on a societal level. All American citizens enjoy lawfully guaranteed equality but the equalities regarding access to the criminal justice system for ethnic minorities are unquestionably lacking. Minority members whether racial or ethnic are vulnerable groups who too often face persecution, subjective imprisonment, offensive treatment by law enforcement, and unequal treatment in the court system. “Ostensibly race or descent-neutral laws can have a disparate impact on vulnerable minorities or even majorities as a consequence of prosecutorial discretion, or sentencing policies, or the nature of the law itself” (Human Rights Watch, 1981). At the national and local policing level, ethnic inequities arise from practices such as racial profiling where an individual’s presumed race is the determining factor in placing them under suspicion. The criminal justice system has the vast potential for implementing an unjustified discriminatory outcome even when there is no obvious racist intention. “Discriminatory impact can be shown in patterns of police abuse, arbitrary arrest, incarceration, prosecution, and sentencing” (Human Rights Watch, 2001). These practices, whether intended or not, have an impact on society’s perceptions as a whole, contributing to an escalating problem of social discontent. There is an overrepresentation of minorities at every phase of the American criminal justice system, once considered the beacon of progressiveness and justice. When asked to identify the source of socially inappropriate behavior and social anguish, institutional entities including law enforcement, politics and psychiatry have a tendency to fault an individual’s failure to regulate their actions. This presumes, incorrectly, that they consciously chose to become oriented to criminal activity. This common misconception may serve to justify reasoning pertaining to the ruling majority which is, generally speaking, upper class, well-educated, white Christian males whose economic, political and social privileges are dependent on a dominated majority. This privileged class has historically enjoyed judicial privileges and voting rights. They have and continue to write the laws slanted toward their own interests. This system conceals the realities of a supposed democratic structure. These individuals want to maintain and increase their domination and wealth which suppresses minority rights thus the prosperity and overall growth of society. Although we’d like to believe we have outgrown the issues of race and gender in the modern society, having discovered that there is no actual difference between the physical nature of a white man, red man, brown man, black man or olive-skinned, the process of racial profiling on a personal and official level seems unlikely to go away. This is because our attitudes and lack of experience are reflected through the avenues of the media and thus become the viewpoint of the people. Reinforcing these beliefs are the official or unofficial but widely practiced policies of racial profiling such as detaining a larger number of young minorities as potential criminals or others as potential ‘illegals.’ When the public sees these kinds of behaviors sanctioned through the media, their latent beliefs gained through previous media presentation are fanned into new life, contributing to a vicious circle in which there are only two outcomes – either we spin into an authoritarian state in which a specific segment of the population is denied its fundamental human rights or we awake to the madness and consciously work to put an end to it. References Hall, C. Margaret. (August 14, 2004). “Public Roots of Sociological Practice: Social Intelligence.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. San Francisco, CA. Human Rights Watch. (1981). “World Conference Against Racism Backgrounder.” Human Rights Watch. (June 22, 2001). “Human Rights Watch and the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” Polakow-Suransky. (2005). “Racial Profiling Goes Beyond Black and White.” What Matters in America. Gary Goshgarian (Ed.). New York: Longman, pp. 200-205. “Prison Statistics.” (May 2006). Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice. Said, Edward. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Sidaneus, Jim & Veniegas, Rosemary C. (2000). “Gender and Race Discrimination: The Interactive Nature of Disadvantage.” Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Stuart Oskamp (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 47-69. Turvey, B. (January 1998). “Deductive Criminal Profiling: Comparing Applied Methodologies Between Inductive and Deductive Criminal Profiling Techniques.” Knowledge Solutions Library. Read More