Discrimination: Minorities
Discrimination: Minorities
Chapter One
Introduction
Background
Though obvious discrimination has diminished in the criminal justice system over the last decades, people still grapple with unfairness in the system. Racial and ethnic disparities are common in crime and criminal justice. Minorities remain overrepresented in different phases of the criminal justice system. That is arrest and prosecution. Minorities have a high risk of arrest and prosecuted for violent crimes than whites. Minorities are arrested for committing crimes such as robbery, rape and murder. On the other hand, the whites get arrested for committing non violent crimes such as property crime and burglary. The number of minorities arrested for committing violent crimes is high compared to the number of whites arrested.
This is according to the Uniform Crime reports released in 2003. The report showed that African Americans got arrested for violent crimes and accounted for a large percentage of those arrested. African Americans accounted for 12.7% of the population of criminals arrested in 2003. They also formed 37% of the criminals arrested for violent crimes. Researchers have associated the high rate of arrests and prosecution among minorities with a wide range of factors. The factors include unemployment, poverty and lack of education (Van Vleet, Vakalahi, Brown & et al, 2000).
Minorities groups tend to be more disadvantages compared to dominant groups. For instance, minority groups in US are disadvantaged compared to whites. The groups report high cases of unemployment, segregation and poverty. This has increased the rate of crime among the minorities and hence arrests and prosecution. Further, people have expressed concern regarding the punishment of offenders in the criminal justice system. Most people believe that minorities get harsher punishments compared to dominant groups. Studies have shown that minorities get harsher punishments compared to other groups. Researchers have associated this with the interpretation of crime among law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers and probation officers interpret the cause of crime for minorities and whites differently. The officers believe that minorities do not respect the authority and hence commit crime. Therefore, minorities get harsher punishments than whites (Kansal, 2005).
Statement of problem
Disparities exist in the arrest, prosecution and punishment of offenders. Minorities make up a large number of offenders arrested, prosecuted and punished in the criminal justice system. Minorities face a risk of arrest and prosecution in the criminal justice system. They have a tendency to be arrested more than other groups. Several factors contribute to the arrest and prosecution of minorities including poverty, unemployment, beliefs among law enforcement officers and policing. The poor socioeconomic status of minority groups in the United States has led to increase in number of minorities arrested. This is due to increase in high rate of unemployment and poverty. Minorities use other means to supplement their income, and most of them engage in criminal activities.
The rates of unemployment among minorities are high as they do not have sufficient education to compete with other groups in the job market. Hence, they rely on low income jobs that make it hard for minorities to satisfy their needs. Further, the beliefs and perception law enforcement officers have about minorities and crime increase the risk of arrest among minorities. They associate crime with minorities and also believe minorities do not respect authority. Policing has also affected minorities and increased their risk of being arrested. Law enforcement officers are unable to equally enforce the law through discretion and use of profiles. Thus, they concentrate in areas with high street crime rates and poverty. This in turn, results to more arrest of minorities as they are accessible to law enforcement officers. Additionally, harsher punishments are unequally imposed on minorities in courts. Courts play a crucial role in the administration of justice. Courts facilitate settlement of disputes among parties. They decide whether a person is guilty or not.
In addition, they determine sentence appropriate for the offenders. All people should access courts in order to resolve their problems and get justice regardless of their race and ethnicity. However, administration of justice in courts has become a serious problem because of bias. Courts do not promote equality when administering justice and punishing criminals. Many people do not trust courts to administer justice to the victim and offender because of inequality. Minorities believe that the court does not impose equal punishment on offenders, but minorities get harsher punishments. The unequal imposition of punishments, arrest and prosecution of offenders has affected the functioning of the criminal justice system and led to distrust among minorities (Hammond & Armour, 2009).
Study purpose
The research purpose is to evaluate the effect of ethnicity in the administration of justice. Race / ethnicity play a key role in the system, and they influence the outcome of various stages of the criminal justice. They influence the arrest of offenders, prosecution and punishment. Minorities face a greater risk of arrest and prosecution compared to other groups. The research will determine whether minorities face a higher risk of arrest and prosecution than dominant groups. Several factors increase the risk of arrest and prosecution among minorities like poverty, unemployment, insufficient education, beliefs and criminal justice policies.
Therefore, the research will discover if the factors that increase the risk of arrest and prosecution among minorities. In addition, the research will discover whether harsher punishments are inequitably imposed on minorities. Researches have shown that minorities get harsher punishments, unlike other groups. Judges impose harsher punishments on minorities due to various factors. The beliefs and perception of the staff on crime among minorities and major groups influence punishment of offenders. The research will discover if the perception and beliefs of the staff affect the imposition of punishment on minorities (American sociological association, 2007).
Research hypothesis
H1: Minorities have a higher risk of arrest than whites because of lack of education, unemployment, socioeconomic factors, policing, ethnicity and perception and belief of staff.
H2: Minorities do not have a higher risk of arrest than whites because of lack of education, unemployment, socioeconomic factors, policing, ethnicity and perception and belief of staff.
H3: Judges inequitably impose harsher punishments/ sentences on minorities due to their beliefs and perception on crime among minorities.
H4: Judges do not inequitably impose harsher punishments/ sentences on minorities due to their beliefs and perception on crime among minorities.
Justification of the study
The study is essentials to the transformation of the criminal justice system. The findings from the study will help promote equality in the criminal justice by showing the relationship between ethnicity and administration of justice (American sociological association, 2007). Ethnicity affects the administration of justice as it leads to inequality especially when staffs in the criminal justice system favor one group over the other. Ethnicity has affected the administration of justice to the minority groups as staff use they do not get equal treatment like the whites. Ethnicity has affected arrest of criminals and prosecution. Minorities are at a higher risk of being arrested and prosecuted than the majority due to their ethnicity.
Law enforcement officers and other staff have different beliefs and perception about minorities and crime. They believe that minorities commit certain crimes more than dominant groups. They believe minorities commit violent crimes more than major groups and hence get arrested. Also, ethnicity has affected punishment of offenders as minorities do not get similar punishments like other groups. The punishments imposed on minorities might not be equivalent to the crime committed as punishments on minorities are imposed unequally. Therefore, the research findings will help understand how ethnicity has affected administration of justice to minorities. This will in turn, facilitate transformation of the criminal justice system by adopting policies that promote equality in all stages of the justice process (Van Vleet, Vakalahi, Brown & et al, 2000).
Limitations of the study
The study has limitations that might affect the outcome and generalization. The sample selection will affect the study outcome as the participants will not be drawn from all states in the country. The sample will be selected from one region of the country. This will affect the generalization of the findings as the opinions of the participants might not reflect the opinion of the minority groups in the country.
Assumptions of the study
The first assumption is the participants selected will represented the population being studied. The minority offenders will represent all minority offenders in the country. The second assumption is the research findings will be generalized to the entire population being studied. The views of the minority offenders used as participants will represent the views of other minority offenders in the country.
Terminology
Different terms used in this study might have a different meaning in various contexts. The following are definitions of terms used in this research.
Juvenile refers to individuals aged 17 years and below.
Ethnic minority refers to individuals from racial groups or ethnic groups of color including African Americans, Hispanic, Asians and Native Americans.
Ethnic overrepresentation (disproportionality) happens when the proportion of minorities in the system is more than the percentage of the entire population.
Racial bias is the differential treatment of individuals based on their membership in various racial or ethnic groups.
Risk factor refers to qualities of individuals and their environment that might increase the likelihood of them being involved with the criminal justice system. Some of the risk factors include socioeconomic status, race, family history, unemployment etc.
Chapter Two
Literature review
Overrepresentation of minorities
A series of studies have been done on ethnicity and administration of justice. Several researchers have examined the over representation of minorities in the justice system due to race and ethnicity. Unconcealed discrimination in the justice system has diminished for the past years according to the American sociological association (2007). However, race and ethnicity are evident in the criminal justice system. Race and ethnicity disparities are still prevalent in crime and the justice system. The overrepresentation of minorities is still an issue in delinquency, offending and phases of the justice process. Minorities especially blacks are overrepresented in the criminal justice system as offenders and victims. The uniform crime report released in 2003 showed that blacks accounted for 12.7% of the population and formed 37% of those arrested for committing violent offences.
Law enforcement officers disproportionately arrested blacks for committing violent crimes. They arrested whites for property offences and burglaries. Also, law enforcement officers arrested a high number of Native Americans in 2003. The Native Americans accounted for 0.9% of the country’s population in 2000 census. They formed 1.3% of arrests in 2003. The rate of Native Americans arrested for driving under alcohol influence was double the national rate. The over representation of minorities in the criminal justice system has hindered the administration of justice. It has prevented analysis of effect of ethnicity on administration of justice.
Also, Van Vleet, Vakalahi, Brown et al (2000) examined the overrepresentation of minorities in Utah juvenile system. They also determined whether systemic racial bias was present. They used a sample of 200 youngsters who were selected randomly. The sample consisted of 100 minorities and 100 Caucasian. The researchers tracked the youths through the juvenile system. They also included their offending histories. The researchers noted that disproportionality started during arrest and continued throughout the system. It increased as the youths progressed through the juvenile justice system. The investigators noted that minority youths represented 30% of the youngsters arrested for person crime. They represented 19% of youth arrested for property crime in various places like Ogden, Prov and Salt Lake City.
The researchers claim that 21.8% of the youths arrested in the cities were minority. In addition, the minority youths get severe disposition than other youths. The researchers factored the offending history and found out that Hispanic youths get severe disposition than all other youngsters. Lastly, Hammond and Armour (2009) claim that minority youths are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system, in all states., Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice happens when minority youngsters have a high contact with the juvenile justice system than whites. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and pacific islanders form 1/3 of the youth population in the country. Though, they form more than 2/3 of the youth in juvenile facilities.
Risk factors for arrest and imprisonment
Hammond and Armour (2009) studied factors that have led to increase in number of minorities arrested and prosecuted. Hammond and Armour (2009) believe that the disproportionate treatment of minority groups is due to various factors. First, the jurisdiction in which the youngsters are processed affects the treatment of the youngsters. Criminal cases adjudicated in the urban places result to harsher punishments than cases adjudicated in rural areas. Also, the location and visibility of the youngsters leads to arrest and prosecution of minorities. Minority youngsters get arrested more than whites as they commit street crimes. For instance, minorities sell drugs on the street corners and public places, and whites sell drugs in their homes. Thus, minority youths get arrested and prosecuted easily when policy officers target street crimes. Second, Hammond and Armour (2009) claim the enforcement of the law has led to arrest of more minority youths compared to whites. Police target low income neighborhoods’ and utilize group procedures to arrest the youths. This leads to disproportionate minority contact.
OJJDP statistics on arrest show that Black youth get arrested more for drug and violent crimes than white youths. Blacks are more likely to be more arrested than whites though they all engage in drug related crimes. Third, the punitive juvenile laws have affected minorities and led to increase in number of minorities arrested. States developed laws in 1990 to try and sentence youngsters as adults. Most states developed automatic transfer laws to exempt various crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. The automatic transfer legislation have affected minority youths. OJJDP’s data shows that black and native Americans youngsters are more likely to be convicted in adult courts for drug related offenses than whites. Fourth, racial bias in the criminal justice system has affected arrest and prosecution of minorities. Studies have shown that racial bias is common in all stages of the justice process and affect minorities as they get arrested more than the whites.
In addition, Simpson & Sealock (1998) investigated the police decision to arrest. They used data from the juvenile offense portion of the birth cohort in Philadelphia in 1958. The researchers assumed that police use race, ethnicity gender, socioeconomic status and crime type to make arrest decisions. The researchers noted that all the ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status and gender influenced arrest decision by the police. Additionally, the seriousness of the crime and prior contact with the police influenced their decision to arrest the offender. Moreover, Pardini, Wynn & Fite (2009) studied the discrepancies in arrest rates between white and black male juveniles.
Van Vleet, Vakalahi, Brown et al (2000) agree with Simpson & Sealock (1998) regarding risk factors and arrest of minorities. They claim that risk factors have led to increase in number of minorities in the criminal justice system Some of the risk factors include race, juvenile system, education, family and gender. Others include socioeconomic status, seriousness of crime and criminal record. Van Vleet, Vakalahi, Brown et al (2000) reviewed studies done before on risk factors and arrest of minorities. Examples include Horowitz and pottieger (1991) and Western, Kleykamp and Rosenfeld (2003) study. A study conducted by Horowitz and pottieger (1991) showed that African American males got arrested more than black females and whites due to drug related activities.
Horowitz and pottieger (1991) examined how gender influenced the handling of serious delinquent youngsters in various stages of criminal justice system. That is arrest, disposition and adjudication. Horowitz and pottieger (1991) used a total of 391 black and white youths aged between 14 and 17 years. 100 were girls and 291 boys. The participants were heavily involved in crime before the interview. They used various controls identified to test for gender bias. That is race, kind of crime and level of involvement in crime. The findings showed a difference in female and male justice outcome. Black males got arrested more for drug related activities compared to black girls and white girls. Therefore, black males have a high risk of arrest because of their gender.
Further, economic inequality in the country has led to increase in crime among minorities and increased their risk of arrest according to Western, Kleykamp and Rosenfeld (2003). Minorities engage in criminal acts to supplement their income due to few economic opportunities. All people in society have similar objectives of material success, but the chances to legitimately accomplish the objectives are not equally distributed. The moral mandate to attain success exerts a lot of pressure on people and forces them to use fair methods and unfair methods to succeed if necessary.
Blocking the opportunities to access material success causes frustration among the poor. This in turn, forces them to get involved in criminal activities in order to access the material success the middle class have. Economic disadvantage affects the informal social controls by disrupting the family and neighborhood. This exposes children from disrupted families to high risk of arrest as they commit a crime at a higher rate. Stable families have the ability to monitor their children behavior while unstable families do not. Thus, peers influence the children to commit a crime.
Additionally, poor families headed by one parent do not have adequate resources to prevent crime. Moreover, the social relations of the neighborhood can facilitate or hinder criminal behaviors. Low economic statutes, ethnic heterogeneity and residential turnover destabilize the communities. Social disorganization leads to delinquency. Communities that are well woven have lower rates of crime as they provide informal social control and economic opportunities. On the other hand, communities not well woven have high crime rate as they do not offer economic opportunities and informal social control according to Western, Kleykamp and Rosenfeld (2003).
Van Vleet, Vakalahi, Brown et al (2000) argument on risk factor and arrest of minorities was extended by ACLU and W. Haywood Burns Insitute (nd). The American civil liberties union of northern California (ACLU) and the W.Haywood Burns Insitute determined how education, employment and socioeconomic status increased risk of arrest among minorities and women. According to the researchers, California has reduced safety net programs and continued to underfund public education for the past years. However, the criminal justice system has evolved and become a catch all facility.
Underfunding education has hindered minorities from accessing education due to lack of funds and increased their risk of committing a crime and arrest. The study findings revealed that the unemployment rate was higher among minority groups compared to the rate of unemployed among whites. 67% of the participants did not have any job at the time of interview, and 47% did not have a job at the time of their last arrest. 32% of the participants identified unemployment as the main reason for their arrest. Offenders have a minimal opportunity of getting employment after release due to lack of skills and criminal record. ACLU and W. Haywood Burns Insitute (nd) noted that 96% of the participants did not get a job after release as their criminal record hindered them from getting one. Their criminal records limited the job opportunities. In addition, 37% stated that the criminal records prevent them from applying for employment. Thus, this compelled the criminals to commit more crime increasing their arrest risk.
In addition to that, the level of income among minorities was lower than for whites. 59% of the subjects reported earning insufficient income and 21% turned to crime to supplement what they earned. Also, lack of education affected minorities negatively and increased their risk of arrest. Insufficient education opportunities results to involvement with criminal justice according to ACLU and W. Haywood Burns Insitute (nd). Minorities experience limited educational opportunities in different ways. First, the probability of minority youths dropping out of high school is high compared to whites. Second, the probability of minority youths failing to graduate from high school is high compared to whites. Third, youths of color get arrested for truancy more than whites. Fourth, minority youths get expelled or suspended from high school more than whites. Lastly, minority youths have a lower probability of graduating from high school or college compared to whites.
Being arrested at a younger age was correlated with various factors such as lack of education opportunities and suspension. Also, it was related to presence police in schools. Over policing in learning institutions forced youngsters into the juvenile justice system. Participants who reported having received a quality education did not get expelled from school and graduated from high school. Participants from Los Angeles had low quality education, high dropout rate and over policing in schools. The researchers noted that those suspended from schools were likely to be arrested before reaching 20 years. Los Angeles and Alameda had the highest number of participants expelled. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of arrest among minorities, the education of minorities should be improved through education funding. Also, the socioeconomic status of minorities should be improved by creating jobs (ACLU & W. Haywood Burns Insitute, nd).
Sentencing of minorities
Race influences sentencing of minorities according to Kansal (2005). Kansal (2005) reviewed studies done on sentencing of minorities in the criminal justice system since 1980s. 40 studies have examined race and ethnic bias in sentencing. 32 have examined sentencing at the state level and 8 at the federal level. The studies determined the effect of race and ethnicity on sentencing severity. 43.2% of the studies examining race and sentencing at the state level revealed that blacks received harsher sentencing than other groups. Also, 27.6% of researchers determining the effect of ethnicity on sentencing revealed that Latinos get harsher sentencing than other groups. Moreover, the studies showed that blacks and Latinos were disadvantaged than whites at the state level. 68.2% of studies examining effects of race on sentencing showed that blacks received harsher sentences than the whites. Also, researchers determining the effect of ethnicity on sentencing on the federal level showed Latinos received harsher punishments than blacks and other groups. In addition, blacks were sentenced for long compared to whites. Latinos had a greater disadvantage regarding the decision to incarnate or sentence length.
Kansal (2005) reviewed studies that examined the interaction of race, ethnicity and other characteristics of the offender. The characteristics include gender, age and employment. He noted that youthful black and Latino males get severe sentences than white males. Also, unemployed black male receive severe sentences than white males. Minority groups get harsher punishments or sentencing compared to whites. A study done on Pennsylvania state correctional system in 1998 found blacks got harsher sentences than whites. Also, males and the younger criminals got severe punishments than females and old offenders. The researchers claimed that white males aged between 18 and 29 were less likely to be sentenced to prison compared to black male. The white males were sentenced to average prison terms of three months and black males more than 3 months. In addition, black men aged 18 and 29 years were 4 times sentenced to prison compared to white men aged 50 years and above (Kansal, 2005).
Other studies have shown that lack of unemployment led to harsher punishments and sentences for minorities. Blacks and Latinos got severe punishments if unemployed compared to whites. Unemployment resulted to high chances of incarceration for black males and Latinos. Minorities such as Blacks and Latinos get punished more harshly than whites because law enforcement officers see them as dangerous and problematic. Thus, judges select them for incarceration or sentence them for long to protect the public. Additionally, the judge’s beliefs and discretion affect sentencing of minorities. The judges indiscriminately sentence minorities to severe sentences by considering the threat to the community. The judges’ stereotype minorities and this affect their decision. Other studies have shown that the race or ethnicity of the offender and victim influence sentencing.
Black defendants get severe sentences for victimizing whites. On the other hand, blacks get fewer sentences for victimizing other blacks. This was evidenced by a study done in Detroit in 1996. The research findings showed that blacks got convicted for more than 3 years longer after assaulting whites sexually. The blacks received a lesser sentence after assaulting blacks sexually. Blacks got sentenced 3 years more than whites who assaulted other whites sexually. Blacks who assaulted whites got severe punishment regardless of the victim being an acquaintance or stranger. Hence, judges inequitably impose sentences on minorities (Kansal, 2005).
Chapter Three
Methodology
Participants
The sample will consist of minority offenders and offenders from dominant groups. The minority offenders will be blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asians. The dominant offenders will be whites. A total of 200 participants will take part in the study. The participants will be selected using stratified random method. The selection will be based on gender, ethnicity and age. The sample will consist of 100 male and 100 female subjects. Each ethnic group will be equally represented in the study by selecting 25 male and 25 females for every group. The stratified method will ensure the sample chosen represents the population of offenders. The offenders should be aged 18 years and above. The offenders should belong to either of the ethnic / racial minority group to be included in the study. They should also have reached 18 years to be involved in the research. The offenders should have committed crime once or more (Creswell, 2002).
Informed consent
Educating the subjects on the benefits and risks of the study prevents harm and improves study outcome. The participants will be educated on the importance of the study to individuals, prison population and society in general. Also, the offenders will be updated about the dangers linked with the research. Informing the subjects about the research risk and benefits ensures the participants make ethical decisions. The participants will decide to participate in the study voluntary. Forcing the subjects to take part in the research influences the study results as they do not give information willingly. It also infringes on the principle of informed consent. Researchers encourage participants to fill an informed consent form to show that the participants have been educated on harm and benefits of research. However, the participants will not sign an informed consent in this research as it might cause harm to them.
When conducting research the researcher should ensure the research does not cause harm to the subjects. Getting a signature causes harm to the subjects as the subjects have to admit to a criminal activity. Signing the consent form increases the likelihood of the individual participating in the research being identified. Therefore, the subjects will not sign the consent form so as to protect them. Also, the principle of confidentiality and privacy should be promoted. The information obtained from the participants should be kept confidential and not shared with other people to prevent causing harm. Requiring the subjects to sign the consent form affects the confidentiality and privacy of the subjects as the information can be accessed by third parties. This will in turn, reveal the identity of the participant and criminal history (Creswell, 2002).
Data collection
The collection of data will be done using questionnaires. The following steps will be followed when collecting data. The first step is getting permission from the participants and the institutional review board. The research should be approved by the university institutional review board before commencing the data collection process. The institutional review board determines the harm the study has on participants and benefits. The second step is administering the questionnaires. The questionnaires will be directly delivered to the subjects. Every subject will get a questionnaire to fill and return to the researcher. The subjects will return the questionnaires after 2 weeks after the date of issue. The fourth step is reviewing and coding the information gathered. Reviewing the questionnaires helps identify completed questionnaires and uncompleted questionnaires.
Only completed questionnaires will be coded. The fifth step is entering the information gathered into the computer. Each question in the questionnaire should be entered onto the computer. The questions should be included in the right order to avoid confusion. There are different software used to enter information into the computer and analyze it. Statistical software such as SPSS enables researchers to key in data and analyze it. Also, Microsoft Excel enables researchers to enter data into a computer and perform appropriate analysis. The software will be utilized to key in data into the computer and analyze it (Creswell, 2002).
Questionnaire
Questionnaires have proved effective in collecting research data. Questionnaires enable researchers to reach a large number of participants. Also, questionnaires do not take time like other research instruments. Moreover, questionnaires prevent researcher bias and ensure the research results are valid and reliable. Researchers can use open ended questionnaires and closed ended questionnaires. Open ended questionnaires contain open ended questions while closed ended questionnaires contain closed ended questions. Closed ended questionnaires do not generate a lot of information and hence information gathered from closed questionnaires is easy to analyze. On the other hand, open ended questionnaires generate a lot of information which makes the analysis time consuming. The open ended questionnaires will be used as they enable the subjects to explain their opinion. The questionnaires do not restrict the participants on the researcher’s opinion (Creswell, 2002).
The questionnaires will consist of two sections. The first section will be used to collect demographic data. The participants will provide personal information relevant to the research objectives. The information provided will be kept confidential. The demographic data consists of gender, age, race/ethnicity and residential area. The participants will state their ethnicity/ race such as black, Hispanic, white, Asian, Native American and others. The second part of the questionnaire will consist of different sub sections including criminal justice, employment, education, socioeconomic and system involvement (Creswell, 2002).
The criminal justice subsection will gather information about the criminal history of the offender. The participants will state their age when they were first arrested and crime. They will also state what happened after arrest such as detaining, convicting, sentencing, charged, plea bargain among others. Additionally, the participants will provide information regarding their recent arrest, offense charged and offense convicted. They will provide information about the factors that led to their arrest such as lack of education, unemployment, racial profiling and poverty. Lastly, they will state how their involvement with the criminal justice system has impacted them or others. The education subsection will get education data from the subjects. The subsection will contain questions relevant to the education level of the subjects. The participants will state their education level including college, high school, elementary among others (Creswell, 2002).
The employment subsection contains questions related to the subjects’ employment history. The subjects will state whether they have ever been employed and how many times. They will also state their employment status at the time of their last arrest. That is employed fulltime, part time or unemployed at the time of the last arrest. Additionally, the section will have unemployment section and the participants will state for how long they have been unemployed if unemployed. They will state factors that hinder them from getting employed like insufficient education and criminal record. Moreover, the participants will provide information about their education completion. They will state the quality of education they received if any and whether they completed high school, college or elementary. They will state the reason for not completing high school, college and elementary. Some of the reasons include dropping out, lack of funding and expulsion.
They will also state the cause for dropping out and expulsion. In addition to that, the participants will state what they do instead of attending school. Lastly, the questionnaire will have a sentencing section. The section will help obtain information about the participants’ sentencing in relation to their race and ethnicity. The participants will state crime arrested for, sentencing and sentencing duration. This will be central in examining the relationship between ethnicity and sentencing. Including all the subsections will ensure the researcher gets sufficient information about the participant. The information will be used to determine the risk of arrest and prosecution among minorities. It will also determine whether judges impose inequitably sentences among the minorities (Creswell, 2002).
Conclusion
In conclusion, studies have shown the existence of racial/ ethnic disparity in the justice system. The ethnic disparity has affected arrest, imprisonment and sentencing of minorities. The arrest, imprisonment and sentencing decisions are based on race, ethnicity, crime type and gender. Minorities have a high risk of arrest compared to dominant groups. This is attributed to their ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, education, employment and policing. Law enforcement officers associate minorities with violent crimes and whites with non violent crimes. Therefore, the number of minorities arrested for violent crimes is high compared to the number of whites. Minorities get arrested for crimes such as robbery, rape and murder. Whites get arrested for property offenses and burglary. Lack of education and employment opportunities among minorities has increased their risk of arrest and imprisonment.
Minorities do not get high income jobs due to lack of education. This compels them to engage in criminal activities in order to supplement the money they earn. Policing affects minorities as law enforcement officers enforce laws that impact minorities negatively. Some of the laws developed to prevent crime such as drug trafficking and racial profiling promote discrimination. The laws have led to high arrests and imprisonment among minorities. Lastly, minorities get harsher sentences compared to whites. They get long sentences and incarceration, unlike whites. The sentencing depends on how the judges perceive the crime to be serious, victim and defendant. Therefore, the risk factors should be addressed in order to minimize the arrest risk of minorities and ensure equal sentence.
Reference
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
