Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System - · PDF file · 2006-04-27racial profiling and racial slurs, which appear ... Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System

57

ETHICAL BACKGROUND

It is generally agreed that discrimination basedon ethnic origin is morally wrong and a viola-tion of the principle of equality. The equalityprinciple requires that those who are equal betreated equally based on similarities, and thatrace is not a relevant consideration in thatassessment (May and Sharratt 1994: 317). Inother words, it is only possible to justify treat-ing people differently if there exists some fac-tual difference between them that justifies suchdifference in treatment (Rachels 1999: 94).Equality is a nonspecific term that meansnothing until applied to a particular context.Thus, in a political context, equality meansequal access to public office and equal treat-ment under the law, and equal treatmentextends to equality in terms of job hiring,promotion, and pay.

Race refers to groups of persons whoare relatively alike in their biological inheri-tance and are distinct from other groups

(American Anthropological Association1997: 2). Ethnicity is a cultural phenome-non referring to a person’s identificationwith a particular cultural group (Hinman1998: 403). Race is socially constructed, andthe notion that persons “belong” to a partic-ular race was developed in the last centurybased on the belief that there was a biologicalbasis for categorizing groups of people.Biologically, however, the term race has nomeaning, yet society continues to give thenotion meaning by using it as a social cate-gory. The notion of race gradually took holdin U.S. society when the institution of slaveryreinforced the idea that one race could beinferior to another (Banks and Eberhardt1998: 58). In the United States, the law hashad the effect of distributing benefits andburdens based on race, and the assignment ofa person to a racial category has often, in thepast, determined his or her rights and obliga-tions (for example, in the “Jim Crow” lawspassed at the end of the Civil War).

3

Racial Discrimination in theCriminal Justice System

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 57

Racism in its most general sense can bedefined as “social practices which (explicitlyor implicitly) attribute merits or allocatevalues to members of racially categorizedgroups solely because of their ‘race’” (Zatzand Mann 1998: 3). There are at least threeaspects to racism: personal prejudice; ideo-logical racism, where culture and biology areused to rationalize and justify the superiorposition of a dominant culture; and institu-tional racism, where the policies and practicesof institutions operate to produce systematicand continuing differences between racialgroups (p. 4).

One aspect of institutionalized racism hasbeen termed petit apartheid. This conceptincludes daily informal or hidden interactionsbetween police and minorities, such as stop-and-question and stop-and-search law enforce-ment practices, which may or may not result inan arrest and consequent entry into the crim-inal justice system (p. 4). The notion of petitapartheid has recently been explored boththeoretically and in terms of those activitiesthat might fall within its definitional scope(Milovanovic and Russell 2001). The focusof petit apartheid appears to be attitudinalfactors that influence policing and other deci-sions within the system; that is, “culturallybiased beliefs and actions” extending, in theview of Georges-Abeyie (2001: x), to insults,rough treatment, lack of civility faced byblack suspects, the quality and objectivity ofjudicial instructions to a jury when anAfrican American is on trial, and otherdiscretionary acts within the system.

Petit apartheid contrasts with grandapartheid. The latter encompasses overtracism. Studies on racism within the criminaljustice system have been critiqued for givingundue emphasis to overt racism and ignoringpetit apartheid (Georges-Abeyie 2001: x). Thischapter aims to explore overt racism withinthe criminal justice system. Issues such asracial profiling and racial slurs, which appearto constitute an aspect of petit apartheid as

well as being discriminatory practices, havealready been discussed in Chapter 2.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

African Americans have suffered discriminationon grounds of race, initially through the systemof slavery, and then through a pattern of exclu-sion and segregation, both informal and formal,in the shape of legislation and court decisionsthat have historically endorsed overt racialdiscrimination. From the time of the inceptionof slavery in the early 17th century until 1865,slaves were considered the property of theirmasters based on a view that they were natu-rally unequal and inferior people. They weresubjected to slave codes, which prohibited thepossession of any rights or freedoms enjoyedby whites; experienced brutal and inhumanetreatment of an extralegal nature; and wereexploited for their labor. Following the CivilWar, amendments to the Bill of Rights prohib-ited slavery and granted all persons, regardlessof race, a right to equal protection. However,despite these legal statements of freedom, pat-terns of discrimination persisted after the warbecause many states passed Jim Crow laws,which had the effect of maintaining forms ofdiscrimination in legal, social, and economicforums. For example, African Americans weredenied the right to vote or to enter into con-tracts, and the doctrine of separate but equalwas applied to keep the races separate.

The courts continued to enforce Jim Crowlaws until the mid-1900s, and AfricanAmericans were also subjected to extralegaltreatment in the form of physical assaults andpractices such as lynching, where police wereoften present. About 3,000 African Americanswere lynched between the mid-1800s and theearly 1900s (Smith 2000: 75), and thoseperforming the lynchings were seldom prose-cuted. During the 20th century, legal rightswere accorded to African Americans and havebeen protected by the courts. In the landmarkcase of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954,

58 ETHICS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 58

the Supreme Court struck down the “separatebut equal” doctrine, and the Civil RightsActs passed in the mid-20th century attem-pted to restate and reinforce a policy againstsegregation.

Today, the black community in the UnitedStates is diverse, comprising, for example,Jamaicans, Nigerians, Ethiopians, Somalis,and other African and West Indies nationali-ties, each with its own culture distinguishablefrom that of African Americans. Nevertheless,despite this heterogeneity, racist attitudes con-tinue to be manifested based on skin color.

The history of Latinos in the United Stateshas been one of contention with the AngloAmerican culture. Spanish colonies wereestablished in the United States in the late 16thcentury, predating the Anglo American pres-ence; however, in 1847, Mexico lost approxi-mately half of its territory to the United States.In recent times, it has been common to associ-ate Latinos with the issue of immigration, andMexicans in particular are constructed as anillegal immigrant group (De Uriarte in Alvarez2000: 88). Racist stereotyping of Latinosdepicts them as sneaky, lazy, and thieving(Levin in Alvarez 2000: 88), and law enforce-ment practices and the criminal justice systemhave been shown to collaborate in discrimina-tion against Latinos in the form of policeharassment of Mexican Americans (Turner inAlvarez 2000: 88).

It is important to appreciate the heterogene-ity of the Latino population in the United Statesbecause issues affecting Mexican Americansmay differ from those impacting Puerto Ricans,Cubans, or immigrants from Central America.For example, Puerto Ricans are the most eco-nomically disadvantaged group (Myers et al. inAlvarez 2000: 89), whereas Cuban immigrantsto the United States have tended to come fromthe middle class, been well-educated, and pos-sess significant economic resources. Never-theless, like African Americans and other blackgroups, the heterogeneous Latino populationtends to be viewed as homogeneous.

American Natives and Alaskan Nativesare the only indigenous groups in theUnited States. The history of contact betweenAmerican Natives and Anglo Americans isreplete with acts of violence against AmericanNatives and with the dispossession of theirlands. Alaskan Natives, as a colonized andmarginalized people, have experienced andcontinue to experience severe trauma gener-ated by social change with high rates of sui-cide, alcohol abuse, and a disproportionaterepresentation in the criminal justice system(see, for example, Banks 2002; Brod 1975;Fienup-Riordan 1994; Kraus and Buffler1979; Travis 1983 in Phillips and Inui 1986;Schafer, Curtis and Atwell 1997). Similarly,American Natives continue to be dispropor-tionately represented in arrest and incarcera-tion data in those states where they areprimarily located (see, for example, Bureau ofJustice Statistics 1999; Grobsmith 1994; Ross2000). Both groups suffer economic, educa-tional, and social stereotyping, which arerevealed in their treatment by the criminaljustice system.

IS THERE RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?

One report suggests that racial discriminationdoes occur at some points in the criminaljustice system. Following the Rodney Kingincident, the Report of the IndependentCommission on the Los Angeles Police Depart-ment (1991) (also called the ChristopherCommission) found that there was excessiveuse of force by LAPD officers and that this wascompounded by racism and bias. One-quarterof the 960 LAPD officers surveyed by thecommission agreed that officers held a racialbias toward minorities, and more than one-quarter agreed that this racial bias could leadto the use of excessive force. The commissionalso reviewed radio transmissions within theLAPD, which revealed disturbing and recur-rent racial remarks often made in the context

Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System 59

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 59

of discussing vehicle pursuits or beatingsuspects. Testimony from witnesses depictedthe LAPD as an organization whose practicesand procedures tolerated discriminatory treat-ment, and witnesses repeatedly testified aboutLAPD officers who verbally harassed minori-ties, detained African American and Latinomen who fit generalized descriptions ofsubjects, and employed invasive and humiliat-ing tactics against minorities in minorityneighborhoods. As well as racism against thepublic, racial bias was also reflected in con-duct directed at fellow officers who weremembers of racial or ethnic minority groups.These officers were subjected to racial slursand comments in radio messages and to dis-criminatory treatment within the department.

In another report, that of the New YorkState Judicial Commission on Minorities(1991), a panel of judges, attorneys, and lawprofessors found that “there are two justicesystems at work in the courts of New YorkState; one for whites, and a very different onefor minorities and the poor” (p. 1). The panelfound inequality, disparate treatment, andinjustice based on race. It reported that manyminorities received “basement justice” in thatcourt facilities were infested with rats andcockroaches, family members of minoritieswere often treated with disrespect and lack ofcourtesy by court officers, and racist graffitiappeared on the walls of court facilities. Thepanel also concluded that minority cases oftentake only four or five minutes in court, sug-gesting a form of assembly line justice, andthat black defendants outside of New YorkCity frequently have their cases heard by an allwhite jury.

In order to determine whether racial dis-crimination exists within the criminal justicesystem, criminologists have conducted researchstudies that have examined the major decisionpoints within criminal justice systems in theUnited States. Most research agrees withWilbanks (1987) and Petersilia (1983) thatalthough there is racial discrimination within

the criminal justice system, the system itselfis not characterized by racial discrimination;that is, that discrimination is not systematic(Blumstein 1993; DiIulio 1996; Russell 1998;Tonry 1995). There are, however, individualcases occurring within the system that appearto demonstrate racial discrimination at cer-tain decision-making points (Wilbanks 1987).According to Petersilia (1983), racial dispari-ties have come about because procedureswere adopted within the criminal justicesystem prior to any real assessment about theeffect of those procedures on minorities. Forexample, she found that

. . . although the case processing systemgenerally treated offenders similarly . . . wefound racial differences at two key points:Minority suspects were more likely thanwhites to be released after arrest; however,after a felony conviction, minority offenderswere more likely than whites to be givenlonger sentences and to be put in prisoninstead of jail. (Petersilia 1983: vi)

Petersilia also suggested that “racial differ-ences in plea bargaining and jury trials mayexplain some of the difference in length andtype of sentence” (1983: ix).

The contention that there is no systematicbias in the criminal justice system based onrace has been challenged by other researcherswho dispute this conclusion on a number ofgrounds (Russell 1998: 28). These include thefact that prior studies have assessed discrimi-nation at a single stage in the system and havetherefore been ineffective in detecting discrim-ination that might exist in its other parts. Forexample, the finding that there is no racialdisparity in sentencing within a system doesnot exclude the possibility of discriminationin other parts of the system. As already dis-cussed, Georges-Abeyie has drawn attentionto how research on racial discrimination inthe system focuses on formal, easily observeddecision-making points and fails to takeaccount of more informal law enforcement


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 60

action (Georges-Abeyie in Russell 1998: 32).He argues that this informal decision makingdetermines who will be arrested and who willenter the system, and that these encountersshould be included in any assessment ofwhether the system operates in a discrimina-tory manner. If such informal action wereincluded, he suggests that a system of petitapartheid would be revealed that woulddemonstrate that African Americans are con-sistently treated in a discriminatory manner ascompared to whites.

Another criticism is that official statistics onrace and crime do not provide a proper basisfor research on discrimination in the justicesystem because the data collection proceduresmake these statistics unreliable and distortanalysis derived from them (Knepper 2000:16). This argument points out that the primaryclassification scheme employed in crime statis-tics designates four official races—white,black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, andAsian and Pacific Islander—as well as twoofficial ethnic groups, “Hispanic origin” and“not of Hispanic origin.” In contrast, the 1990census includes 43 racial categories and sub-categories. If race is made the focus of inquiry,there is an assumption that races constitutediscrete groups, but in fact, the races inAmerica are not monolithic. For example, thedesignation “black” fails to capture the mostsignificant aspects of what it means to be blackin the United States because the designation“black” includes persons of Caribbean,African, and Central and South Americanorigin, and within each of these groups arepopulations distinguished by culture, lan-guage, and shades of color (Knepper 2000:19). Knepper argues that no objective state-ments can be made based on these race cate-gories, which are essentially political ratherthan social definitions of races, derived from alegal ideology of separate races grounded inthe institution of slavery (p. 23).

In relation to the juvenile justice system, ithas been argued that any discrimination

within that system should be consideredseparately from the adult system for two basicreasons. First, a high level of discretion ispermitted in the juvenile justice system, andthis may tend to produce more discrimination.Second, because most adult offenders begintheir contact with the adult system through thejuvenile justice system, characteristics acquiredin the juvenile system, such as a prior record,may influence their treatment in the adultsystem (Pope and Feyerherm 1990).

As to whether racial discrimination existswithin the juvenile justice system, after a reviewof the literature, Pope and Feyerherm (1990)conclude that two-thirds of the studies revie-wed suggested evidence of direct or indirectdiscrimination against minorities, or a mixedpattern of bias, especially in the processing ofjuveniles through the system. Their survey alsosuggests there is evidence that race differencesin outcome may seem to be minor at a certaindecision-making stage in the system, but thatthese differences have more serious implica-tions as earlier decisions in the system movetoward a final disposition. Third, Pope andFeyerherm state that although the relation-ship between race and juvenile justice decisionmaking is complex, their analysis suggests thatvarious factors do interact to produce racialdifferences in juvenile justice dispositions.

In considering racial discrimination withinthe criminal justice system, researchers haveisolated and examined various decision-making points, including arrest, bail, juryselection, conviction, and sentencing. Thesedecision-making points will be considered inthe following sections.

Police Encounters WithCitizens and Police Arrest

Racial origin may sometimes influencepolice decisions about making an arrest. In thecase of suspected juvenile offenses, researchhas shown that for minor offenses, police offi-cers may take into account the demeanor of a


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 61

juvenile in deciding whether to make an arrest(Black and Reiss 1970; Piliavin and Briar1964). If the police perceive the suspectedoffender as showing them disrespect, this mayincrease the likelihood of an arrest. Along withracial origin, Smith (1986) found that the con-text of a particular neighborhood also influ-enced police decisions about arrest or use offorce because police were more likely to arrest,threaten, or use force against suspects inracially mixed or minority neighborhoods.

In considering the proportion of blacksinvolved in police shootings of criminal sus-pects, Fyfe (1982) demonstrated that inNew York City, blacks were more likely thanwhites to be shot by police because they weredisproportionately involved in armed incidentsthat involved shooting. In contrast, research inMemphis showed that blacks were no morelikely than whites to be involved in armed inci-dents, but nevertheless, police shot dispropor-tionately more blacks when they were fleeing.Fyfe concludes that police use of deadly force inMemphis is influenced by the race of a suspect.

Bail

For most offenses charged, prosecutors andjudges have a wide discretion about whetherdefendants should be released on bail, and thecourts may use factors such as dangerousnessto the community and the possibility of flightin making bail decisions. Generally, the courtlooks at the accused’s employment, maritalstatus, and length of residence in an area as anillustration of community ties, which mayallow the court to conclude that the accused isunlikely to flee (Albonetti et al. 1989).

Studies tend to show that race is not afactor in bail applications once an accused’sdangerousness to the community and priorhistory of appearance at trial are controlledfor. However, race does relate to the decisionto grant bail in other ways. For example, in astudy of more than 5,000 male defendants,Albonetti et al. (1989) reveal that defendantswith lower levels of education and income

were less likely to get bail and more likely toreceive onerous bail terms. They also foundthat white defendants with the same educa-tion, background, and income as black defen-dants were more likely to be granted bail, andthat in considering bail applications, a priorcriminal record counted against blacks morethan whites. However, in assessing the criteriafor bail, dangerousness and seriousness of theoffense were of greater weight for whites thanfor blacks. Overall, the study shows that undercertain conditions, whites are treated moreseverely on bail applications but that gener-ally, white defendants receive better treatment.Walker, Spohn, and DeLone (2000: 135) notethat it is impossible to guarantee that judgeswill refrain from taking race into account indetermining applications for bail, and that thesimple stereotyping of minorities as less reli-able and more prone to violence than whiteswill likely result in a higher rate of bail denialregardless of any other assessed factors.

Jury Selection

Is there any evidence of racial discrimina-tion in the jury selection process? Historically,laws have tried to entrench racial discrimina-tion in jury selection. In Strauder v. WestVirginia (1880), the court struck down astatute that limited jury service to white menon the grounds that it violated the FourteenthAmendment to the Constitution. However,this ruling did not prevent some states fromattempting to preserve the lawfulness of an all-white jury by other means. For example, inDelaware, jury selection was drawn from listsof taxpayers, and jury members were requiredto be “sober and judicious.” Although AfricanAmericans were eligible for selection underthis rule, they were seldom if ever selectedbecause, as explained by the state authorities,few African Americans in the state were intel-ligent, experienced, or moral enough to serveas jurors (Walker et al. 2000: 156). TheSupreme Court subsequently ruled this prac-tice in Delaware as unconstitutional.


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 62

Since the mid-1930s, the Supreme Courthas ruled on jury selection issues in a way thathas made it difficult for court systems to prac-tice racial discrimination in jury selection. Forexample, the court has ruled it unconstitu-tional to put the names of white potentialjurors on white cards, African Americanpotential jurors on yellow cards, and then tosupposedly make a random draw of cards todetermine who would be summoned for juryduty (Walker et al. 2000: 157). Walker et al.argue that many states still practice discrimi-natory procedures in selecting jury pools. Forexample, obtaining the names of potentialjurors from registered voters, the Departmentof Motor Vehicles, or property tax rolls seemsto be an objective process, but in some juris-dictions racial minorities are less likely to beregistered voters, own automobiles, or owntaxable property (p. 157). The effect, there-fore, is to stack the jury pool with middle-classwhite persons and to marginalize minorities.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers are able touse peremptory challenges to excuse potentialjurors without identifying any cause or expla-nation, and without any accountability to thecourt, so it is therefore possible to employperemptory challenges in the practice of racialdiscrimination in jury selection. Initially,the Supreme Court was unwilling to restricta prosecutor’s right to use peremptory

challenges to excuse potential jurors on racialgrounds, preferring to rely on the presump-tion that the prosecutor was always actingin good faith in making such challenges.However, the court determined that it wouldintervene if a defendant could establish a caseof deliberate discrimination by showing thateliminating African Americans from a partic-ular jury was part of a pattern of discrimina-tion in a jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, thisstringent test has proved difficult to satisfybecause few defense lawyers possess informa-tion proving a pattern of discrimination. In1986, the Supreme Court rejected this test,ruling that it was not necessary to establisha pattern to show discrimination, and thata defendant need only bring evidenceshowing the prosecutor had exercised his orher peremptory challenges on racial grounds.Once a prima facie case of discrimination hasbeen made out, the state must explain why anAfrican American has been excluded from thejury pool. Even so, Walker et al. (2000: 160)contend that judges have given the benefit ofthe doubt to prosecutors and have shownthemselves willing to accept the prosecutor’sexplanations rather than make a finding ofdeliberate discrimination. Case Study 3.1,derived from a New York Times newspaperreport, illustrates an alleged case of racialdiscrimination in jury selection.


CASE STUDY 3.1 IN DALLAS, DISMISSAL OF BLACK JURORS LEADSTO APPEAL BY DEATH ROW INMATE

Thomas Miller-El is an African American charged with shooting two white hotelclerks during a robbery in 1985. One of the hotel clerks died and Miller-El, age 50,is due to be executed by the State of Texas on February 21. He has asked the TexasBoard of Pardons to commute his sentence and has appealed his case to the U.S.Supreme Court on the ground that the jury that convicted him was chosen usingracial discriminatory standards that have been applied by the Dallas County DistrictAttorney’s Office in many cases. The District Attorney’s Office opposes the appealarguing that there is no evidence of any racial discrimination.

(Continued)

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 63

Conviction and Sentencing

In the aggregate, blacks tend to be convictedless than whites (Petersilia 1983; Wilbanks1987), and according to Sampson andLauritsen (1997), no consistent evidence exists

of racial discrimination at the point of criminalconviction. Research on sentencing, however,has generated the most interest among thosestudying racial disparity. A review of a largenumber of studies conducted for the NationalAcademy of Sciences (Hagan and Bumiller


(Continued)

The jury in the trial comprised nine whites, one Filipino, one Hispanic, and oneAfrican American. Three other African Americans were excluded from the jury byprosecutors, as were seven of eight other African Americans interviewed as prospec-tive jurors.

Racial discrimination in jury selection is prohibited by the Constitution, and until1986, in order to establish race discrimination, an accused had to meet a heavy burdenof proof because he or she had to show a pattern of discrimination. In 1986, in Batsonv. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court lowered the standard, determining that if theaccused was able to show that the prosecution appeared to be using its peremptorychallenges to jurors to exclude minorities, the trial judge could call for an explanation.

Miller-El was convicted and sentenced one month before the Batson ruling, but thedecision applies to his case retroactively. To date, both state and federal courts haveupheld his death sentence, determining that no racial discrimination occurred duringjury selection. Miller-El’s argument is that the courts considered only the number ofchallenges to jurors (10 out of 11 prospective African American jurors) and failed toconsider other evidence showing that prosecutors in Dallas County had for yearsexcluded blacks from juries as a matter of routine practice. This argument is supportedby four former prosecutors whose terms of office cover the period from 1977 to 1989and who confirmed that the Dallas County office did apply a policy of excludingblacks from juries. Further supporting this argument is a 1986 article in a local news-paper citing a 1963 internal memo in the District Attorney’s Office advising prosecu-tors not to include “Jews, negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minorityrace” as a jury member (in Rimer 2002). Further, in the early 1970s the prosecutor’soffice employed a training manual which contained advice on jury selection to theeffect that a prosecutor should not include any member of a minority group because“they almost always empathize with the accused” (in Rimer 2002).

The Dallas Morning News has examined 15 capital murder trials from 1980through 1986 and has revealed that prosecutors excluded 90% of African Americansqualified for jury selection. Nevertheless, the Assistant District Attorney in the Miller-El case disclaimed any notion that he had challenged the 10 African American jurorson grounds of race. He claimed that he was trying to assemble the best possible juryand that his office had no policy of racial discrimination. Despite these claims, atleast three of the potential African American jurors challenged in the Miller-El casesupported capital punishment and wanted to be on the jury.

Source: Rimer 2002.

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 64

1983) concluded that rather than race being asignificant factor in sentencing, it was the priorcriminal record that affected disposition, andthat once this was controlled for, the directeffect of race was basically eliminated. Racialdisparities in sentencing arose from the dispro-portionate representation of minorities in offi-cially processed criminal conduct, and this inturn was reflected in longer or more seriousprior criminal records. However, some con-cerns were raised that race might have a cumu-lative effect on sentencing by operatingindirectly through other factors that disadvan-tage minorities, and that race might interactwith other factors, such as initial arrest, toinfluence decision making.

In studies conducted in the 1970s and1980s, researchers investigated racial bias byconsidering the victim’s status rather than thatof the offender, explored historical changesin sentencing, and included in their researchcrimes not previously covered, such as drugprocessing. In drug prosecutions, Peterson andHagan (1984) found that low-level black drugdealers in New York were treated moreleniently than white drug dealers, but thatmajor black dealers were treated more harshlythan their white counterparts because theywere perceived as inflicting still more harm onthe already victimized nonwhite population.Overall, the research conducted during thisperiod seemed to suggest that there was somediscrimination, sometimes, in some places.

Current research has focused on determinatesentencing including three-strikes legislation.In one analysis of over 11,000 such cases inCalifornia, researchers found some racial dis-parities in sentencing, but once the results werecontrolled for prior record and other variables,it was concluded that racial disparity in sen-tencing was not the result of racial discrimina-tion (Klein, Petersilia and Turner 1990). Thequestion of whether the exercise of prosecutor-ial discretion produces discrimination has alsobeen investigated. Where sentences are fixed,charging and plea bargaining become crucial,

and attempts have been made to uncover thefull dimensions of prosecutorial discretion.Looking at the prosecutor’s decision to charge,one analysis of more than 30,000 cases fromLos Angeles County showed that cases againstblacks and Hispanics were significantly morelikely to be prosecuted than cases against whites(Spohn, Gruhl and Welch 1987). This contrastswith a Supreme Court ruling that the decisionto prosecute shall not be “deliberately basedupon an unjustifiable standard such as race,religion, or other arbitrary classifications”(Walker et al. 2000: 140). A number of studieshave concluded that white defendants areoffered plea bargains more frequently andobtain better deals than minorities (Walkeret al. 2000: 146), but other studies have foundthat race has an insignificant effect on pleanegotiations (Albonetti 1990; Miethe andMoore 1986).

Researchers have begun to pay attention tomacro social and economic contexts, attempt-ing to frame research that could identify therole of poverty, urbanization, and relatedfactors in sentencing. Walker et al. (2000: 62)point out that a large economic gap existsbetween white Americans and minorities, andthat over the past 20 years, there has been con-siderable growth in the number of the verypoor. The first official definition of povertywas developed by the federal government in1964, and reflects the minimum incomeneeded for an adequate standard of living. In1995, the poverty line was $7,763 for a singleperson and $15,569 for a family of four; inthat year, 13.8% of all Americans were belowthe poverty line (p. 65). In 1995, about 11%of all whites were below the poverty linecompared with 29% of blacks and 30% ofHispanics. Although the African Americanmiddle class has grown significantly, thepercentage of African Americans among thevery poor has also increased. In terms ofwealth—that is, the measure of all accumu-lated assets such as owning a house or a carand holding savings—the 1991 median wealth


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 65

of white families was $44,400, compared withonly $4,600 for African Americans and$5,300 for Hispanics.

As well as investigating decision-makingpoints within the criminal justice system forracial discrimination, the racial disproportionin prison populations and the place of race inseeking and imposing the death penalty havebeen the subject of research attention.

IMPRISONMENT DISPARITIES

In 2000, at year end, there were 1,381,892federal and state prisoners. Black inmatesmade up an estimated 46% of all inmates withsentences of more than one year, and whiteand Hispanic inmates accounted for 36% and16%, respectively (BJS 2001b). Nearly 10% ofall black males between the ages of 25 and 29were in prison in the year 2000. This compareswith 2.9% of Hispanic males and 1.1% ofwhite males in the same age category.

How can the racial disproportionalitythat exists in the U.S. prison population beaccounted for? A study conducted by Blumstein(1982, 1993) concluded that between 1979 and

1991 there had been an enormous growth inthe rate of imprisonment, and that the incarcer-ation rate had tripled between 1975 and 1990.While the total number of drug offenders hadincreased nearly 10 times, there had been littlechange between 1979 and 1991 in the level ofracial disproportionality in incarceration rates.Importantly, the “war on drugs” had focusedon offenses involving high levels of discretion,opening up the possibility of charges of dis-crimination. In light of the increase in the pro-portion of incarcerated drug offenders from5.7% in 1979 to 21.5% in 1991, Blumstein(1993) suggested that an adequate investigationof racial disproportionality in incarcerationshould specifically examine the issue of dispar-ity by crime type. In particular, having consid-ered the growth in the number of drugoffenders, he concluded that the war on drugshad contributed to racial disproportionality toa major degree, despite what he saw as the futil-ity of that strategy. The war on drugs continuesto impact African Americans disproportion-ately; in 1999, black inmates made up 57.6%of all offenders convicted of drug offenses ser-ving time in state prisons (BJS 2000a). Table 3.1


Table 3.1 Number of Inmates in State or Federal Prisons and Local Jails, by Gender, Race,Hispanic Origin, and Age, June 30, 2002

Male Female

Age Total* White** Black** Hispanic Total* White** Black** Hispanic

Total 1,848,700 630,700 818,900 342,500 165,800 68,800 65,600 25,40018–19 78,800 23,100 35,800 16,100 4,200 1,800 1,500 90020–24 340,900 97,00 159,700 73,200 22,100 9,600 7,500 4,50025–29 340,800 97,800 161,600 72,000 26,800 10,200 10,500 4,70030–34 329,200 112,800 142,300 65,600 35,700 14,300 14,500 5,50035–39 294,200 107,900 132,800 45,900 34,400 14,500 14,200 4,50040–44 213,800 84,200 90,200 33,100 22,000 8,900 9,700 2,50045–54 + 183,100 76,500 72,800 27,300 16,200 7,200 6,300 2,20055 or older 51,400 27,600 14,400 7,000 3,000 1,900 800 400

Source: Harrison and Karberg 2003.Note: Based on custody counts from National Prisoners Statistics (NPS-1A), 2002, and annual Survey

of Jails, 2002. Estimates by age were obtained from Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002, Survey ofInmates in State Correctional Facilities, 1997, and Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) forInmates on September 30, 2001. Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100.

*Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.**Excludes Hispanics.

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 66

shows the number of inmates in state andfederal prisons and local jails by race, gender,ethnicity, and age; Table 3.2 illustrates the rateof incarceration per 100,000 populationthrough these same categories.

DEATH PENALTY DISPARITIES

Research has shown that, controlling fortype of homicide, race is a factor in the pros-ecutor’s decision to seek the death penaltyand in its imposition (Aguirre and Baker1990; Baldus, Woodward and Pulaski1990). It appears that the race of the victim,together with the race of the offender, havea significant influence on the prosecutor’swillingness to seek the death penalty and onthe willingness of judges and jurors toimpose it (see Table 3.3). Black offendersconvicted of murdering white victims are atthe highest risk for receiving the sentence ofcapital punishment, and offenders, whetherblack or white, convicted of murderingblack victims are least likely to receive thedeath penalty.

HATE CRIMES

An act of racial discrimination may take theform of a hate crime. Hate crime statutes fallinto two types (Russell 1998: 86), some treat-ing hate crimes as independent offenses, andothers providing enhanced penalties forcrimes that are motivated by bias. Additionalpenalties may be imposed by the court whereit finds that an offense has been committedand was motivated by bias based on race. Tosuccessfully convict a person of a hate crime,the prosecution must establish the motive ofthe accused, which is extremely difficult todo. Sometimes the nature of the crime pro-vides a motive, such as painting a swastikaon the side of a house owned by a Jewishfamily, which common sense would interpretas an attack because the family is Jewish. Thelanguage used by an offender during theoffense may be particularly important, espe-cially if racial slurs are used. Prosecutors alsopay attention to the severity of the attack, theabsence of any provocation by the victim,any prior history of contact between thevictim and suspect, and any previous history


Table 3.2 Number of Inmates in State or Federal Prisons and Local Jails per 100,000 Residents, byGender, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age, June 30, 2002

Male Female

Age Total* White** Black** Hispanic Total* White** Black** Hispanic

Total 1,309 649 4,810 1,740 113 68 349 13718–19 1,800 831 5,715 2,146 100 67 233 13320–24 3,387 1,521 11,529 4,081 230 158 520 28725–29 3,586 1,615 12,877 4,339 282 170 752 31430–34 3,213 1,680 11,001 3,878 348 213 1,024 36635–39 2,534 1,356 9,545 2,776 297 183 924 30240–44 1,827 1,006 6,738 2,402 187 107 650 19345–54 974 543 3,885 1,512 83 50 281 12055 or older 194 130 665 362 9 7 25 17

Source: Harrison and Karberg 2003.Note: Based on the latest available estimates of the U.S. resident population for July 1, 2002, from

the 2002 census (by gender, race, and Hispanic origin) and 1990 census, adjusted for undercount(by age).

*Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.**Excludes Hispanics.

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 67

of similar incidents in the same area (Byersand Spillane 2000: 265).

Data collected between 1997 and 1999under the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990show that 61% of hate crime incidents weremotivated by race and 11% by ethnicity, andthat the majority of such incidents involved aviolent offense (see Table 3.4). Racially moti-vated hate crimes most often target AfricanAmericans, with 6 in 10 racially based inci-dents targeting African Americans and 3 in 10targeting whites (BJS 2001a).

EXPLANATIONS FORRACIAL DISCRIMINATION INTHE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

How do we explain the existence of racialdiscrimination in the criminal justice system?Most research on racial discrimination drawson consensus and conflict theories to explaindiscrimination. In the consensus view, individ-uals share their values with the state, which isorganized to protect the interests of societyand employs criminal law as an instrument of

protection. Punishment is based on rationalfactors such as the seriousness of the offenseand prior convictions. On the other hand, con-flict theorists perceive society as comprisinggroups with conflicting values with the stateorganized to represent the interests of thepowerful ruling class. Criminal law is viewedas an instrument of protection for the power-ful and elite, and punishment is based onnonrational factors including race and socialclass. Conflict theorists argue that groupsthat threaten the power of the rulers aremore likely to be the subjects of social con-trol; that is, these groups are more criminal-ized and suffer greater rates of incarceration.They argue that minorities, the unemployed,and the poor represent these threateninggroups (Brown and Warner 1995; Chamblissand Seidman 1971).

Laws concerning vagrancy help toillustrate conflict theory. Being a vagrant isdefined as simply occupying public spacewithout resources and with no clear purposefor being there. It is argued that only the poorengage in vagrancy, and making vagrancy a


Table 3.3 Executions and Other Dispositions of Inmates Sentenced to Death, by Race andHispanic Origin, 1977–2001

Prisoners Who Received

Prisoners UnderPrisoners Executed Other Dispositions*

Race/Hispanic Sentence of Death Percent of Percent ofOrigin** 1977–2001*** Number Total Number Total

Total 6,754 749 11.1% 2,424 35.9%White 3.316 422 12.7% 1,250 37.7%Black 2,784 263 9.4% 1,000 35.9%Hispanic 550 52 9.5% 140 25.5%All other races**** 104 12 11.5% 34 32.7%

Source: Snell and Maruschak 2002. *Includes persons removed from a sentence of death because of statutes struck down on appeal, sentences or

convictions vacated, commutations, or death by other than execution.**White, black and other race categories exclude Hispanics.***Includes persons sentenced to death prior to 1977 who were still under sentence of death on 12/31/01 (8), persons

sentenced to death prior to 1977 whose death sentence was removed between 1977 and 12/31/01 (372), and personssentenced to death between 1977 and 12/31/01 (6,374).

****Includes American Indians and Asians.

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 68

criminal act and enforcing laws against it areattempts by the powerful to control the poor(Walker et al. 2000: 18). The era of segrega-tion in the south from the 1890s to the 1960salso demonstrates conflict theory in action.During this period, the criminal justice systemenforced laws providing for white supremacyand declared the subordinate status of blacks.Nowadays, street crime is a primary target oflaw enforcement, and this kind of crime is forthe most part committed by the poor andracial and ethnic minorities. This targeting of

street crime contrasts with the relatively sparseenforcement of white-collar crime committedprimarily by middle and upper class whites.Accordingly, conflict theorists argue that streetcrime is another demonstration of conflicttheory.

Another theoretical explanation for racialdiscrimination argues that the symbolic aspectof social conflict drives crime control. Forexample, perceptions of threats, rather thanactual threats, are influential in the design ofcrime control policies (Tittle and Curran 1988


Table 3.4 Hate-bias incidents, by type of bias motivation, 1997–1999

Hate Crime Incidents

Type of Bias Number PercentMotivation Total 2,976 100%

Race 1,820 61.2%Anti-black 1,059 35.6%Anti-white 561 18.9%Anti-multiracial 92 3.1%Anti-Asian 60 2.0%Anti-American Indian 48 1.6%

Religion 431 14.4%Anti-Jewish 177 5.9%Anti-other religious group 132 4.4%Anti-Catholic 29 1.0%Anti-Protestant 30 1.0%Anti-Islamic 30 1.0%Anti-multiracial group 28 0.9%Anti-atheist 5 0.2%

Ethnicity 329 11.1%Anti-Hispanic 199 6.7%Anti-other ethnicity ornationality of origin 130 4.4%

Sexual Orientation 379 12.7%Anti-male homosexual 167 5.6%Anti-homosexual 103 3.5%Anti-female homosexual 65 2.2%Anti-bisexual 32 1.1%Anti-heterosexual 12 0.4%

Disability 17 0.6%Anti-physical disability 12 0.4%Anti-mental disability 5 0.2%

Source: Strom 2001.

Note: Unit of count is incidents (n = 2,976).

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 69

in Sampson and Lauritsen 1997). Some studiessupport this position. For example, one studyin Washington State found that nonwhiteswere sentenced to imprisonment at higherrates in counties with large minority popula-tions, and interviews with justice officials andleaders in the community showed a consistentpublic concern with “dangerousness” and the“threat from minorities.” Accordingly, crimewas perceived as a minority problem, and racewas used as a code for certain lifestyles andforms of dress thought to signal criminality.According to this view, it follows that the poorand the underclass are seen not as a threat torulers and elites, but to the middle and work-ing classes who make up the dominant major-ity of American society.

Sampson and Lauritsen (1997: 362), afterreviewing most of the studies on discriminationin the criminal justice system, conclude thatdiscrimination appears on occasion at somestages in the criminal justice system, in somelocations. However, there is little evidence ofany systematic or overt bias on the part ofcriminal justice decision makers. They contendthat there is a perception of racial discrimina-tion in the administration of justice that isfueled by the regular moral panics and politicalresponses to those panics such as the war oncrime, the war on drugs, and the concern withsexual predators. These are targeted at par-ticular lifestyles or locations associated withminorities and have the effect of subjecting thebehavior of minorities to increased levels ofsocial control (Chambliss 1995; Tonry 1995).

In discussing the relationship betweenAfrican Americans and the criminal justicesystem, Mauer seeks to account for the strik-ing increase in the proportion of AfricanAmericans incarcerated in the United States,pointing out that blacks represented only 21%of those imprisoned in 1926 compared to one-half of all prison admissions today (Mauer andU.S. Sentencing Project 1999: 120). Mauersuggests that to some extent the explanation isrooted in society’s response to crime, noting

that most crime is intraracial; that is, peoplefight their neighbors and invade homes in theirown communities. Historically, as long asblack crime was located within black commu-nities it was of little concern to law enforce-ment, but when it was perceived to spill overinto white communities, police became proac-tive. Mauer argues that the influence of race isclearly seen in some parts of the criminal jus-tice system, pointing to death penalty sen-tences as providing compelling evidence ofthis. He suggests that the way in which raceplays a role in sentencing decisions is quitesubtle and is influenced by a number of fac-tors. These include whether white offendersbenefit from greater resources such as a pri-vate lawyer, whether whites have access toexpert evidence, whether they are able toafford the costs of substance abuse treatment,and whether whites are able to arouse lessunease in criminal justice decision makers thanminorities. Commenting on these factors,Mauer points out in relation to the right tocounsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment,that although minorities are entitled to legalrepresentation at trial and during the processup to trial, there is some question about thequality of legal representation provided toindigent defendants by public defenders.Although African Americans are more likelyto be defended by public defenders, it does notfollow that this is necessarily discriminatorytreatment because some argue that publicdefenders are underpaid, poorly trained, andlack resources (Weitzer 1996). Others, how-ever, disagree, believing that public defendershave negotiating capital within the criminaljustice system that can benefit the indigentdefendant, especially through plea bargaining(Wice 1985). In the case of capital offenses,Bright and Keenan (1995) assert that judgesoften assign inexperienced or incompetentlawyers to represent indigent accused, and theInnocence Project continues to uncover casesin which defendants in capital cases, whetherminorities or not, have been poorly advised


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 70

or represented by court-assigned lawyers(Innocence Project 2002).

Mauer joins with those who believe thatsentencing policies and moral panics targetminorities (Mauer and U.S. Sentencing Project1999). Discussing the history of marijuanapolicy, he points out that when this drug wasfirst used in the 1900s it was perceived to be adrug used only by blacks and MexicanAmericans. It was penalized in the 1950s witha sentence of two to five years imprisonmentfor first time possession. In the 1960s, whenmarijuana came to be widely used by the whitemiddle class, public attitudes began to change,and marijuana began to be perceived as a rel-atively harmless drug, nonaddictive, and notlikely to lead to other criminal activity. By the1970s, legislation had separated marijuanaout from other narcotics and had lowered thepenalties, and some jurisdictions even effec-tively decriminalized its possession in smallquantities. However, law enforcement prac-tices in relation to marijuana laws vary andmay result in acts of discrimination based onrace. As an example, Mauer (p. 134) cites thecity of Milwaukee, where possession was formany years classified as a misdemeanor,whereas the same conduct in the suburbs ofMilwaukee was a mere ordinance violation.The outcome of this disparity in classificationwas that white offenders in the suburbs paida fine, and in the city, the mostly nonwhitearrests might result in jail time and a record. Inthis case, while the policy makers in the cityand in the suburbs may not have consciouslytargeted minorities, their failure to anticipatethe impact of their decision making resulted inunconscious targeting. Some, however, con-tend that the targeting of drug users is far fromunconscious. For example, Tonry (1998: 52)believes that those who launched the drug warknew that “the enemy troops would mostly beyoung minority males,” and that making massarrests would disproportionately incarceratethose males. He also contends that those pro-moting these policies were well aware that the

laws distinguishing powder from crackcocaine would disproportionately affectblacks. Thus, the “war on drugs” exemplifiesthe effect produced by a deliberate policychoice to focus on the enforcement of drugoffenses.

Looking at the situational aspect of drugenforcement, Mauer points out that conduct-ing drug arrests in inner city neighborhoods iseasier for law enforcement because of the visi-bility of street drug dealing as compared todealing carried out behind closed doors insuburban neighborhoods (Mauer and U.S.Sentencing Project 1999: 148). Furthermore,where dealing takes place openly, residents ofblack neighborhoods are more likely to com-plain and ask for police intervention. Lynchand Sabol (cited in Mauer and U.S. SentencingProject 1999: 149) conclude that the “war ondrugs” has resulted in an increased targetingof black working and middle class areas fordrug enforcement. While the processes thatproduce this outcome may not have beenracially motivated, they have produced raciallydisparate outcomes. The impact of the “waron drugs” on women of color is a goodexample of a racially disparate outcome. This“war” has produced increased convictionrates for low-level drug offenders who havelittle prospect of negotiating any beneficialplea bargain in exchange for informationabout other offenders. These low-level offend-ers are often women, and in 1999, theSentencing Project revealed that the number ofwomen incarcerated for drug offenses rose by888% between 1986 and 1996 (Mauer et al.1999). Between 1986 and 1995, New Yorkdrug offenses accounted for 91% of theincrease in the number of women sentencedto imprisonment, and in California, drugoffenses accounted for 55% of the increaseover the same period (Mauer et al. 1999).

The most discussed disparity in drug sen-tencing in recent years has been the issue ofsentencing for possession of crack cocaine.The mandatory sentencing laws passed by


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 71

Congress provided a far harsher punishmentfor possession of crack cocaine than forpowder cocaine, in that the sale of 500 gramsof powder resulted in a mandatory five-yearprison term whereas possession of only 5 gramsof crack cocaine triggered the same mandatorypenalty (Mauer and U.S. Sentencing Project1999: 155). Significantly, crack cocaine is usedprimarily by urban blacks and powder cocaineis used by middle and upper class whites. Thesemandatory sentencing laws have had a majorimpact on blacks because the vast majority ofpersons charged with crack trafficking havebeen black. As a result of the disparity inthese offenses, the average prison sentenceserved by black federal prisoners for posses-sion of crack cocaine is 40% longer than theaverage sentence for whites convicted of pos-session of powder cocaine (McDonald andCarson 1993).

SUMMARY

The debate about racial discrimination in thecriminal justice system remains unresolved.While most research suggests an absence ofsystematic racial discrimination, there isagreement amongst researchers that acts ofdiscrimination occur at specific decision-making points, and some argue that informaland hidden forms of discrimination occurboth within and outside the system. It followsthat the majority opinion supports argumentsthat acts of discrimination occur, and thatthey may perhaps be deeply rooted in culturaland social attitudes to other races. These mayexpress themselves in complex and nuancedways that are difficult to capture withinresearch strategies. Associated with acts ofdiscrimination is the issue of the publicperception of the workings of the criminaljustice system. Regardless of the conclusionsof research studies, there is a widespreadbelief amongst minorities that the systemdiscriminates against them and is thereforeunjust. To counter this perception, those

exercising decision-making powers within thesystem must act ethically and strive to eradi-cate any suggestion of racial bias and dis-crimination from their decisions.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Explain why the term race is an inadequatecategory of analysis.

2. What historical events and circumstancesinfluence the possibility of the existence ofracial discrimination within the criminaljustice system?

3. What are the difficulties involved in focus-ing on decision-making points in the crim-inal justice system to determine whetherracial discrimination occurs?

4. Explain the concept of “petit apartheid”and how its existence might generateacts of discrimination in the criminaljustice system.

5. How can the study of drug policy andthe prosecution of drug offenders assistin establishing the existence of racialdiscrimination in the criminal system?

6. What theoretical explanations are offeredfor racial discrimination in the criminaljustice system? Explain with examples.

REFERENCES

Aguirre, A. and D. Baker. 1990. “EmpiricalResearch on Racial Discrimination in theImposition of the Death Penalty.” CriminalJustice Abstracts 22: 135–153.

Albonetti, C. 1990. “Race and the Probability ofPleading Guilty.” Journal of QuantitativeCriminology 6: 315–334.

Albonetti, C., R. Hauser, J. Hagan and I. Nagel.1989. “Criminal Justice Decision Making as aStratification Process: The Role of Race andStratification Resources in Pretrial Release.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5: 57–82.

Alvarez, A. 2000. “Unwelcome Citizens: Latinosand the Criminal Justice System.” Pp. 85–98 in


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 72

Investigating Difference: Human and CulturalRelations in Criminal Justice, edited by TheCriminal Justice Collective of NorthernArizona University. Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

American Anthropological Association. 1997. Raceand Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics andAdministrative Reporting. Arlington, VA:Author.

Baldus, D., G. Woodward and C. Pulaski. 1990.Equal Justice and the Death Penalty: A Legaland Empirical Analysis. Boston: NortheasternUniversity Press.

Banks, C. 2002. “Doing Time in Alaska: Women,Culture and Crime.” Pp. 232–257 in It’s aCrime: Women and Justice (3rd ed.), edited byR. Muraskin. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Banks, R. and J. Eberhardt. 1998. “SocialPsychological Processes and the Legal Basesof Racial Categorization.” Pp. 54–75 inConfronting Racism: The Problem and theResponse, edited by J. Eberhardt and S. Fiske.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Black, D. and A. Reiss. 1970. “Police Control ofJuveniles.” American Sociological Review 35:63–77.

Blumstein, A. 1982. “On the RacialDisproportionality of the U.S. States’ PrisonPopulation.” Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology 73: 1259–1281.

Blumstein, A. 1993. “Racial Disproportionality ofU.S. Prison Populations Revisited.” Universityof Colorado Law Review 64: 743–760.

Bright, S. and P. Keenan. 1995. “Judges and thePolitics of Death: Deciding Between the Bill ofRights and the Next Election in Capital Cases.”Boston University Law Review 75: 759–835.

Brod, T. M. 1975. “Alcoholism as a Mental HealthProblem of Native Americans.” Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 32: 1385–1391.

Brown, C. and B. Warner. 1995. “The PoliticalThreat of Immigrant Groups and PoliceAggressiveness in 1900.” Pp. 82–98 inEthnicity, Race, and Crime: PerspectivesAcross Time and Place, edited by D. Hawkins.Albany, NY: State University of Albany Press.

Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. American Indians

and Crime. Washington, DC: Author.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 2001a. HateCrimes Reported in NIBRS, 1997–99.Washington, DC: Author.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 2001b. Prisonersin 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Byers, B. and L. Spillane. 2000. “Hate Crimein Contemporary American Society: ASociological Approach.” Pp. 243–270 inMulticultural Perspectives in Criminal Justiceand Criminology, edited by J. Hendricks andB. Byers. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Chambliss, W. 1995. “Crime Control and EthnicMinorities: Legitimizing Racial Oppression byCreating Moral Panics.” Pp. 235–258 inEthnicity, Race, and Crime: PerspectivesAcross Time and Space, edited by D. Hawkins.Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress.

Chambliss, W. and R. Seidman. 1971. Law, Order,and Power. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

DiIulio, J. 1996. “My Black Crime Problem, andOurs.” City Journal 6: 14–28.

Fienup-Riordan, A. 1994. Boundaries andPassages: Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik EskimoOral Tradition. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

Fyfe, J. 1982. “Blind Justice: Police Shootings inMemphis.” Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology 73: 707–722.

Georges-Abeyie, D. 2001. “Petit Apartheid inCriminal Justice: The More ‘Things’ Change,the More ‘Things’ Remain the Same.”Pp. ix–xiv in Petit Apartheid in the U.S.Criminal Justice System, edited by D.Milovanovic and K. Russell. Durham, NC:Carolina Academic Press.

Grobsmith, Elizabeth. 1994. Indians in Prison:Incarcerated Native Americans in Nebraska.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hagan, J. and D. Bumiller. 1983. “Making Senseof Sentencing: A Review and Critique ofSentencing Research.” Pp. 1–54 in Research onSentencing: The Search for Reform, editedby A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, S. Martin andM. Tonry. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Harrison, P. and J. Karberg. April 2003. “Prisonand Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002.”Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,U.S. Department of Justice.


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 73

Hinman, L. 1998. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach toMoral Theory. Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace.

Independent Commission on the Los AngelesPolice Department. 1991. Los Angeles: City ofLos Angeles.

Innocence Project. 2002. “Loren Santow and TheIllinois Death Penalty Education Project.”Retrieved January 17, 2003 (www.innocence-project.org).

Klein, S., J. Petersilia and S. Turner. 1990. “Raceand Imprisonment Decisions in California.”Science 247: 812–816.

Knepper, P. 2000. “The Alchemy of Race andCrime Research.” Pp. 15–30 in The System inBlack and White: Exploring the Connectionsbetween Race, Crime, and Justice, edited byM. Markowitz and D. Jones-Brown. Westport,CT: Praeger.

Kraus, R. and P. Buffler. 1979. “SocioculturalStress and the American Native in Alaska: AnAnalysis of Changing Patterns of PsychiatricIllness and Alcohol Abuse among AlaskaNatives.” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 3:111–151.

Mauer, M., C. Potler and R. Wolf. 1999. Genderand Justice: Women, Drugs, and SentencingPolicy. Washington, DC: The SentencingProject.

Mauer, M. and U.S. Sentencing Project. 1999. Raceto Incarcerate: The Sentencing Project. NewYork: New Press.

May, L. and S. Sharratt. 1994. Applied Ethics: AMulticultural Approach, Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McDonald, D. and K. Carson. 1993. Sentencing inthe Federal Courts: Does Race Matter?Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Miethe, T. and C. Moore. 1986. “RacialDifferences in Criminal Processing: TheConsequences of Model Selection onConclusions about Differential Treatment.”Sociological Quarterly 27: 217–237.

Milovanovic, D. and K. Russell (Eds.). 2001. PetitApartheid in the U.S. Criminal Justice System:The Dark Figure of Racism. Durham: CarolinaAcademic Press.

New York State Judicial Commission onMinorities. 1991. Criminal Justice Newsletter22(12): 1–2.

Petersilia, J. 1983. Racial Disparities in theCriminal Justice System. Santa Monica, CA:RAND.

Peterson, R. and J. Hagan. 1984. “ChangingConceptions of Race: Towards an Account ofAnomalous Findings of Sentencing Research.”American Sociological Review 49: 56–70.

Phillips, M. and T. Inui. 1986. “The Interaction ofMental Illness, Criminal Behavior and Culture:Native Alaskan Mentally Ill CriminalOffenders.” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry10: 123–149.

Piliavin, I. and S. Briar. 1964. “Police Encounterswith Juveniles.” American Journal ofSociology 69: 206–214.

Pope, C. and W. Feyerherm. June and September1990. “Minority Status and Juvenile JusticeProcessing: An Assessment of the ResearchLiterature (Parts 1 & 2).” Criminal JusticeAbstracts: 327–335; 527–542.

Rachels, J. 1999. The Elements of MoralPhilosophy. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

Rimer, S. February 13, 2002. “In Dallas, Dismissalof Black Jurors Leads to Appeal by Death RowInmate.” The New York Times. RetrievedJanuary 15, 2003 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/national/13DEAT.html).

Ross, L. 2000. “Imprisoned Native Women andthe Importance of Native Traditions.”Pp. 132–144 in States of Confinement:Policing, Detention, and Prisons, edited byJ. James. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Russell, K. 1998. The Color of Crime:Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protec-tionism, Police Harassment, and Other Macro-aggressions. New York: New York UniversityPress.

Sampson, R. and J. Lauritsen. 1997. “Racial andEthnic Disparities in Crime and Criminals in theUnited States.” Pp. 311–374 in Ethnicity, Crimeand Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. Crime and Justice: AReview of Research (Vol. 21), edited byM. Tonry. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Schafer, N. E., R. Curtis and C. Atwell. 1997.“Disproportionate Representation of Minori-ties in the Alaska Juvenile Justice System:Phase 1 Report.” Justice Center. Anchorage:University of Alaska.


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 74

Smith, B. 2000. “Historical Injustices, ContemporaryInequalities: African Americans and CriminalJustice.” Pp. 71–84 in Investigating Difference:Human and Cultural Relations in CriminalJustice, edited by The Criminal JusticeCollective of Northern Arizona University.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, D. 1986. “The Neighborhood Context ofPolice Behavior.” Pp. 313–341 in Crime andJustice: A Review of Research: Vol. 8Communities and Crime, edited by A. Reissand M. Tonry. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Snell, T. and L. Maruschak. December 2002. CapitalPunishment 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau ofJustice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Spohn, C., J. Gruhl and S. Welch. 1987. “The Impactof the Ethnicity and Gender of Defendants onthe Decision to Reject or Dismiss FelonyCharges.” Criminology 25: 175–192.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).Strom, K. September 2001. Hate Crimes Reported

in NIBRS, 1997–99. Washington, DC: Bureauof Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Tonry, M. 1995. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, andPunishment in America. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Tonry, M. 1998. “Racial Politics, RacialDisparities, and the War on Crime.” Pp. 41–57in The Criminal Justice System: Politics andPolicies, edited by G. Cole and M. Gertz.Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.

Walker, S., C. Spohn and M. DeLone. 2000. TheColor of Justice: Race, Ethnicity and Crime inAmerica. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Weitzer, R. 1996. “Racial Discrimination in theCriminal Justice System: Findings and theProblems in the Literature.” Journal ofCriminal Justice 24(4): 309–322.

Wice, P. 1985. Chaos in the Courthouse: The InnerWorkings of the Urban Municipal Courts.New York: Praeger.

Wilbanks, W. 1987. The Myth of a Racist CriminalJustice System. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Zatz, M. and C. Mann. 1998. “The Power ofImages.” Pp. 1–12 in Images of Color, Imagesof Crime: Readings, edited by C. Mann andM. Zatz. Los Angeles: Roxbury.


03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 75

03-Banks.qxd 1/30/04 4:52 PM Page 76

Documents

Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System - · PDF file · 2006-04-27racial profiling and racial slurs, which appear ... Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System