Minorities are Over-represented throughout the Criminal Justice Process - Coursework Example

Minorities are Over-represented throughout the Criminal Justice Process All British citizens enjoy lawfully guaranteed equality but for ethnic minority’s, equal access to the criminal justice system is unquestionably lacking. Inequality exists on two levels, the prejudices of individuals regarding predominantly the race and religion of others and the disparity of societal access created within the political realm. This discussion examines racial disparities as it applies to criminal offenders, an issue that emanates from both the individual and political spheres. 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). Ethnic minorities make up approximately eight per cent of the population in Britain and are concentrated in mainly large cities. As time passes, more and more of this percentage of minorities were born in the UK and the percentage of this group born outside the UK is progressively decreasing. Illuminating specific patterns of discrimination regarding housing and employment is, at the very least, complicated. While some minority factions are fairing better than those of the majority (white), many others are not. What is not arguable is the fact that minority members are by far overrepresented within all aspects of the criminal justice system including those victimized by crime and those who commit crimes. It goes without saying, however, that they are well under-represented as officials in law enforcement departments as well as in the judiciary. There is evidence (the Macpherson Report) that shows that police officers exhibit racist attitudes and that institutional racism exists within police departments. “‘Stop and search’ policies have been a particular cause for concern, as people from visible minority groups have been over-subject to this policy” (Giddens, 2006). Comparative criminal justice studies are dedicated to illustrating how ethnic minorities and immigrants are treated within the criminal justice system on a worldwide basis. Without exception, the incarceration rate in all countries studied demonstrates that the incarceration rates of minorities far exceed that of the particular majority ethnicity. In addition, minority members that experience a high crime or incarceration rate generally belong to economically and socially deprived social groups. Furthermore, minority groups experience heightened discriminatory bias in decisions regarding pretrial confinement and sentencing guidelines (Tonry, 1997). The observations in these findings are corroborated in the countries that have conducted similar studies. In the United States, for example, 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 throughout the history of the country (Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997). In more recent years, various U.S. criminal agencies have increased their efforts to control a new type of minority group, namely illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. The U.S. passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which contains provisions that specifically target these groups by deterring employment opportunities for illegal immigrants and has provided a great deal of funding to the Immigration and Naturalization Service so it could increase efforts to diminish illegal immigration by stiffening border control tactics (McDonald, 1997). The recent increased implementation of law enforcement measures which are exclusively aimed at minorities and immigrants has occurred not only in the U.S. but in European nations as well. A study that conducted research in both the U.S. and Europe showed that interactions between police agencies and interactions with immigrants are becoming increasingly tense as evidenced by a proliferation of physical and verbal abuse, a growing mutual distrust and an escalating threat of violence. In the U.S., “Discrimination against minorities occurs indirectly as a result of poor legal representation, language problems, high incidences of specific offenses (such as drug-related and immigration violations) and low level of employment status” (Marshall, 1997). Studies in European countries have uncovered similar outcomes of discriminatory practices. There is an overrepresentation of immigrants and minorities at every phase of the criminal justice system in the Western world, considered the beacon of progressiveness and justice. Another example is research conducted in France. It found an overrepresentation of foreigners among arrestees in large part because a majority of the crimes are related to immigration (Tournier, 1997). Likewise, research in Germany discovered that “foreign minorities face several problems at the entry-level of the criminal justice system (for instance, they have a higher chance of pre-trial detention), which may lead to a systematic discrimination of foreign nationals” (Albrecht, 1997). Foreigners that breached the law were much more likely to incur prison sentences instead of probation or a suspended sentence. Not surprisingly, further evidence indicates that minorities experienced a disparity of humane treatment while incarcerated. In England, “the prison experience is particularly harsh for foreign nationals because of language difficulties and cultural isolation” (Richards et al, 1995). 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 who has historically enjoyed judicial privileges, voting rights and has, and continues to write the laws slanted toward their own interests 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. As compared to constituents of the socially dominant faction, ethnic minorities are much more liable to be detained, questioned, and searched by law enforcement officials. Once they have been 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 having an opportunity to post bond. When tried for a crime, they face a higher probability to be found guilty and are less apt to serve their sentences outside of prison such as serving 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). The majority of non-British citizens that have been charged with a crime must rely on a less than high quality legal defence that court-appointed legal aid offers. Because they do not have access to a quality representation, do not possess a strong command of the language, and certainly do not fully comprehend the inner-workings of the justice system, immigrants experience a much higher rate of incarceration than do citizens for committing a crime of a similar nature. The lack of knowledge regarding the system and poor language skills continues to serve as a detriment to immigrants during the appeals process, hindering their ability to successfully contest a conviction and garner support for the appeal from politicians or legal advice from positions inside prison. Prisons seldom offer English language classes or other help to those facing this great disadvantage. It is generally acknowledged that the prison system is under-funded and cannot provide services specific to immigrant concerns. “The reduction of the prison education budget means that some prisoners with the reading, writing and oral English standard of a five-year-old are told their English is ‘adequate’ and are denied English language classes” (Tatchell, 2006). This form of discrimination is unintended but remains a powerful example of the negative effects stemming from racial inequality. The lack of communicative abilities is a handicap that continues throughout the justice process. It is the reason that immigrants often are not successful in meeting their sentence plan; specifically, they are not able to adequately fulfill the system’s offender behavioural programmes. They are therefore not considered ‘rehabilitated’ and not suitable to progress to more tolerable prison settings. Foreigners, especially those that are not white and/or not proficient in the English language, are more likely to experience racial discrimination than are citizens. They are more likely to be convicted wrongfully, denied language lessons, fail prison programmes and are denied the transfer to more ‘relaxed’ prison circumstance. Racism continues to be a genuine problem with in the justice system. A minor yet still disconcerting number of prison officials are overt racists. For example, some have been known to make disparaging remarks to prisoners when they believe they do not understand what is being said. “Overall, the treatment of non-UK citizens (mostly black and Asian) in British jails falls well short of any acceptable standard of justice” (Tatchell, 2006). Racism as an ideology is illogical in principle and diverse in practice thus difficult to explain by a single definition. It permeates the family tree of societies and is reflected in all its attitudes, behavior, and institutions. The concept of racism may be conscious or subconscious and is expressed in actions or attitudes initiated by individuals, groups, or institutions that treat human beings unjustly because of their skin pigmentation. Racism is rooted in dysfunctional belief systems resulting from distorted perceptions formed over a period of time and e cannot ignore the significant role of the socio-cultural environment in shaping perceptual patterns. Immigrants to Britain continue to be principally motivated by the needs of the labour market and are therefore advantageous to Britain’s economy. The duty of humanitarian, social and political interests is to make certain all people regardless of cultural background are both recognised and treated equitably in the criminal justice system. References Albrecht, H. J. (1997). “Ethnic minorities, crime and criminal justice in Germany.” Crime and Justice. Vol. 21, pp. 31-99. Giddens, Anthony. (2006). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Human Rights Watch. (22 June 2001). “Human Rights Watch and the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” Accessed 02 August 2007 from Marshall, I. H. (1997). Minorities, Migrants, and Crime: Diversity and Similarity across Europe and the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McDonald, W. F. (1997). “Crime and illegal immigration.” National Institute of Justice Journal. Vol. 232, pp. 2-10. Richards, M.; McWilliams, B.; Batten, N.; Cameron, C.; & Cutler, J. (1995). “Foreign nationals in English prisons.” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 34, N. 3, pp. 195-208. Sampson, R.J. & Lauritsen, J.L. (1997). “Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States.” Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. M. Tonry (Ed.). Chicago, Chicago University Press. Tatchell, Peter. (27 April, 2006). “Another criminal oversight.” Guardian Unlimited. Accessed 02 August 2007 from Tonry, M. (Ed.). (1997). Ethnicity, Crime and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Tournier, P. (1997). “Nationality, crime, and criminal justice in France.” Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. M. Tonry (Ed.). Chicago, Chicago University Press. 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. Read More