Ending Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement: Appendix A - Disparities in Criminal Justice

© 2002 Peter Free

 

Go to: Page 1 ─ Page 2 ─ Page 3 ─ Page 4

 

Appendix B ─ Appendix C ─ Appendix D ─ Appendix E ─ Footnotes

 

Disparities in Criminal Justice

            Racial bias in street policing and drug intervention originates much of the disparity in prison incarceration rates between minorities and whites.  The disparity in the proportionate distribution of initial police contacts is now well documented. [79] Statistical data connected with lawsuits and Attorney General investigations in some prominent jurisdictions numerically highlighted the problem.

            Volusia County, Florida [80] and elements of the Maryland State Police, New Jersey State Police and the New York City Police Department effectively discriminated by race and ethnicity. [81]  Despite discriminatory enforcement, arrest results revealed that contraband possession rates among different groups did not vary significantly. [82] These results called racially biased drug interdiction and stop and frisk tactics into question.  Proving disparate driving behavior to justify discriminatory traffic stop rates may have fared equally badly.  Expert testimony in New Jersey indicated that there was no reason to believe that whites and African Americans drive differently. [83]  A contrary study has not been released. [84]

            The fact that disproportion survives and is arguably magnified all the way to incarceration indicates that the justice system is not working effectively to correct racial and socioeconomic skewing of initial police interventions.  In December 2000, 3,457 African American, 1,220 Hispanic, and 449 white males were imprisoned per 100,000 males in their respective populations. [85]  These rates are unacceptable, absent legitimate evidence that minority groups are more prone than other groups to committing criminal acts.

            The situation carries over to the nation’s young people.  In 1997, minority youth, 34 percent of the population, represented 62 percent of young people in detention. [86] African Americans comprised 15 percent of youth under eighteen and 58 percent of young people committed to state adult prison. [87]  In Los Angeles county, Latino youth were 2.3 times more likely than whites to be arrested for violent offenses, 6 times more likely to be transferred to adult court, and 7.3 times more likely to be sentenced by an adult court to the state's most restrictive juvenile placement. [88]

            The magnitude of this injustice is masked by the fact that police do uncover concealed criminal offenses whenever large numbers of people are contacted. [89]  A vicious cycle begins if one group of people receives selective police attention.  If police contact proportionately more of one social group than another, they will find a higher number (not proportion) of illegalities.  The absolute number of uncovered illegalities appears to justify the perception that the minority group is more corrupt than other people.

            The police then distribute a higher portion of their limited enforcement resources to concentrate further on the "problem" group.  This increased attention reveals still more incidents of criminal behavior.  Eventually, the jails contain a grossly disproportionate share of the targeted people.  In this way, the initial prejudice against the disfavored group is apparently confirmed.  This illusionary statistical proof appears to justify further efforts to stamp out crime among the people it has focused on.

            A particularly cruel twist is that convicted felons lose the right to vote in many states.  Thirteen percent of African American males are now disenfranchised. [90]  It is difficult to effect political change in the direction of equality when the oppressed group has been deprived of its most meaningful chance to be heard.

 

(This is Appendix A)

 

Go to: Page 1 ─ Page 2 ─ Page 3 ─ Page 4

 

Appendix B ─ Appendix C ─ Appendix D ─ Appendix E ─ Footnotes