The Issue of Racial Discrimination in the United States - Research Paper Example

Part I Background and Significance The topic of this paper is to examine the issue of racial discrimination in the US relative to drug crimes. This paper holds that African Americans are imprisoned at a higher rate for drug crimes than whites. Racial inequality is enhanced by the difference in penalties for the use and possession of prohibited drugs such as crack cocaine and powder cocaine. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established mandatory minimum sentences for possession of specific amounts of cocaine. However, it also established a 100-to-1 disparity between distribution and a 20-to-1 disparity for usage of powder and crack cocaine (William, 2001). Currently in legislation is the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, which would equalize penalties for crack and powder cocaine, thus correcting the injustice. The previous seven bills similar to the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 have not been approved. Congress and the President need to review and pass this bill and make it a reality. Specific Objectives The main objective of this paper is to examine the facts or statements of truth that can be examined in the context of racial discrimination in the sentencing of drug offenders and to arrive at conclusions accordingly. It is known that disparities in sentencing are arbitrary for a number of reasons. Before the introduction of the federal compulsory minimum sentencing in 1986 for drugs related violations, the federal drug sentencing in the case of African Americans was higher by 11 percent as compared to whites. After four years this average was higher by 49 percent. In 2000 the proportion of African American people lodged in jails was much more than those in higher education. On the basis of such facts, leading analysts concluded that the country’s crime policy was a significant contributing factor in disrupting African American families. The impact of the compulsory minimum imprisonment for drug offenses contributed in leading to unreasonably high rate of incarceration and also separated family members from each other on account of minor crimes amongst their children. Such practices not only created large scale disfranchisement amongst those that were convicted of felony but also prohibited people that were incarcerated earlier, from getting appropriate social services in improving their families (Russel, 2005). These statements will be examined in the light of available sources and efforts will be made to determine the strength in such assertions. References Russell, Katheryn. (2005). The Color of Crime, New York: New York University Press. William, Benjamin. (2001). African Americans in the Criminal Justice System, New York: Vantage Press. Part II Background and Significance As reported recently by the Sentencing Commission, there is a strong need to revise the prevailing disparity in sentencing for drug related offences. Such a change would have a far reaching positive impact in improving the evenhandedness of the federal judicial systems. Legislation was introduced in the Congress recently that addressed some pertinent issues. For instance, the Senate Bill provides for the reduction of the drug quantity ratio to a disparity of 20:1, but does not touch upon the compulsory minimums (Drug Sentencing Reform Act, 2006). There is a House Bill that balances the drug quantity ratios and does away with the compulsory minimum sentencing for simple possessions pertaining to drugs. Such Bills are steps taken in the right direction and ought to be cleared by Congress. The mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine and the inequality associated in dealing with powder cocaine has created a pattern that must be ended immediately (The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, 1986). It is encouraging to note that President Obama is keen to remove the disparities in adopting better sentencing policies relating to drugs related crimes as an issue of civil rights. A Bill has already been considered by many committees that have recommended the matter to be considered as a whole by the Congress. Though the matter has been put on a calendar of business, the legislation order will be considered and voted by the majority party leadership. Specific Objectives This paper focuses on the hypothesis that public interest in the practices of the drug offences sentencing patterns is now quite significant which has added strength to the reform movement towards reducing sentencing guidelines. In this context the Supreme also made a ruling in the case titled Kimbrough v. United States that a federal district judge was within his authority to frame his decision on the basis of unfairness emanating from the 100:1 quantity disparities amongst some drugs related crimes (Delores, 2000). Such decisions have been applauded by the media and have appealed to the Congress in initiating steps to make mandatory sentencing for drug offences fairer (Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2006). Methods i. The list of major variables under investigation The methods chosen by me primarily pertained to “Theory testing” study because I wanted to compare and focus on numbers (the gap between sentencing of blacks and whites). I know my variables and I used nomothetic and quantitative method as survey. In this survey, I asked simple questions such as “Do you think blacks are discriminated in sentencing for drugs related crimes?” (Open-end question like yes or no question) and “How do you think the given problem can be solved?” (They need to answer from their perspectives). This is about sentencing, so I used interval measurement. I used this method because my research needed to have possible solutions, and I think this helped me in keeping objectivity. I knew that even though my hypothesis is that blacks are discriminated in sentencing pertaining to drugs related crimes there is a bigger gap in terms of specific circumstances that have lead to such conditions. ii. Measurement procedures for each variable All the respondents have responded in saying that blacks are discriminated against in making statements such as white offenders are less likely to be charged and more likely to be found not guilty. Each variable has been examined in the context of available data indicating that African Americans comprise of fifteen percent of the nation’s drug users, but they make up 37 percent of offenders arrested for drug offenses; 59 percent amongst those that are convicted and 74 percent amongst those that are sent to jail for drug offenses. This kind of racial inequality has a larger impact in terms of the destructive collateral consequence pertaining to the country’s drug policies and compulsory detainment of African American individuals and communities. The disparity in sentencing has been found to be enormously arbitrary for a number of reasons. First the present drug quantity ratios at 100:1 promote superfluous disparity on the basis of race. In view of the relatively low costs of many drugs such as crack cocaine, they are mainly used by poor people, most of them being African Americans (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, 2009). National data assembled by the Sentencing Commission reveals that there are more chances of African Americans to be convicted for offenses relating to crack cocaine. The disparity in sentencing crack cocaine offenses which is evident from the fact that powder cocaine offenses are disproportionate and less harsh since African Americans are penalized to a greater extent than white offenders (Marc, 2004). iii. Sampling procedures For this research, the triangulation approach has been used because of the wide scope of the study. It has involved the use of three methods namely; interviews, surveys and document search. The choice of interviews has been informed by the adaptability they offer. For example, the body language of the respondent can help in obtaining more information. The use of surveys is justified by the fact that they can be completed at the convenience of the respondent and can also reach many people. Document search will be helpful in finding information on previous work on the topic. The use of several methods will help in ensuring accuracy of the findings. The study has been conducted amongst back youth in American cities that were chosen at random. iv. Data Collection procedures For the purpose of this paper the unit analysis was based on people’s perceptions although the age of examined respondents was kept restricted between 20 and 28 years. The reason why such age restrictions were kept is because data was required from people that are not satisfied with the sentences relative to drug crimes. The sample size for the research was 30 black youth, including 10 females and 20 males. My independent variable was race, and my dependent variable was the perceived gap in the pattern of sentencing in drugs related crimes amongst white and black youth in America. v. Research Design I have considered all relevant ethical issues for this research. In terms of recruitment I have randomly selected respondents and given them anonymous questions. I have abided by the principles of informed consent by explaining the objectives of my study to the respondents before they came for the survey. I specifically looked for black youth who are dissatisfied with the sentencing patterns for drugs related offences; therefore I asked them these questions before taking the survey. References Delores Jones-Brown, (2000). Race, Crime, and Punishment. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House. Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2006, S. 3725, 109th Cong. (2006). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-3725, Accessed on 7 February, 2010. Marc Mauer, (2004). Race to Incarcerate. New York: Free Press. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (2009). Unfairness in Federal Cocaine Sentencing: Is it Time to Crack the 100 to 1 Disparity, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Patterson090521.pdf. Accessed on 17 September, 2011 The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986). Part III Findings Opponents of the sentencing policies feel that a racially discriminatory influence is exerted on minority communities because most of the crack cocaine offenders are African Americans, while those held for powder cocaine violations are mostly whites. As per the 2002 report of the Sentencing Commission, about 85% of offenders that were convicted by federal courts for crack cocaine offenses were African American. The 2007 report of the Commission held that in 2006, 81.8% of the crack cocaine violators were African American and that 57.5% of the powder cocaine offenses were committed by Hispanics. Judiciary and law enforcement must consider racial disparities since the disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing leads to considerable disregard for the criminal justice system. There will be an extreme lack of confidence in the system in view of the common belief that the criminal justice system encourages unjustified disparity on the basis of race. It is also believed that such patterns dissuade witnesses and victims from coming forward to assist and cooperate with law enforcement procedures. While considering such issues, some agencies such as the Sentencing Commission have recommended that there should be an enhancement of the limits in regard to drugs violations in focusing on the punishments in more detail as in the case of serious and major trafficking instances. The Sentencing Commission had also planned to reduce the quantity ratios on a number of occasions. There was a proposition in 1995 to amend the guidelines that required a one is to one ratio and permitted specific increase in punishment for drug related offenses that involved the use of weapons or of body injuries. This amendment was not accepted by Congress and the Sentencing Commission proposed in 1997, a ratio of 5:1 and in 2002 it recommended lowering the ratio to a minimum of 20:1, but none of these were accepted by the Congress. Conclusions The findings of this paper are in keeping with the hypothesis that public interest in the practices of the federal crack cocaine sentencing patterns is now quite significant which has added strength to the reform movement towards reducing sentencing guidelines. The Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 aims at removing the disparities in sentencing and is to be considered by Congress after it is recommended by the different committees of the federal government. Although it has been passed by the House Judiciary Committee, it is due to be considered on the floor of the House. It is encouraging to note that President Obama is keen to remove the disparities in adopting the sentencing policies relating to drugs offences as an issue of civil rights. The Bill has already been considered by many committees that have recommended the matter to be considered as a whole by the Congress. Though the matter has been put on a calendar of business, the legislation order will be considered and voted by the majority party leadership. There is however a bright ray of hope that the disparities in regard to crack cocaine and powder cocaine penalties and ratios will be removed once the Act is passed by Congress. Implications It is recommended that the Congress and state governments should implement certain key changes to improve the situation. The quantity of some drugs that triggers federal prosecutions and sentences should be balanced with and enhanced to the present level provided for all drugs. As already indicated, there is no basis for penological or medical reasons to keep a disparity ratio of 100:1 amongst crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. It leads to an unwarranted prevalence of disparity in the country’s criminal justice system. The federal government needs to ensure that prosecutions adequately target high level offenders of both crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Judges should be able to use their authority effectively in exercising discretion and considering mitigating factors while sentencing, for which the compulsory minimum sentencing for all drugs related offences must be removed, which also includes the compulsory minimums for simple drugs possession. It is known that states too have the same disparity in their respective laws and they must balance the disparities in drug quantity ratio amongst different drugs to levels that check the role of major drug offenders and not only of low level users and dealers. Read More