Executive summary
This article discusses racial inequality in the administration of justice with regard to African Americans living in the United States. This study is guided by the fact that American society remains divided along racial lines regardless of its rich history and claims to democracy. As a minority community, African Americans have suffered endlessly and lack social justice in a society where social institutions operate discriminatorily and with racialist vested interests. The study is subdivided into three main parts. The first section discusses the context and importance of examining racial inequality and its relationship with the administration of justice by acknowledging that African Americans have long been victims of systemic racism meted out by various institutions in the justice system. Additionally, the sector discusses the impacts of racialism on the administration of justice, such as mass incarceration, poverty, lack of access to public amenities, and the increasing mistrust and internalized hatred between law enforcement and the African American community. The second segment reviews existing guidelines and policies that contribute to the current disparities in the justice system. These include mandatory minimums, three-strike laws, truth-in-sentencing, and the stop-and-frisk policy. Also, the part provides several policy options involving all stakeholders, such as the judiciary, law enforcement, defense, and corrections, aimed at eradicating determinate sentencing guidelines and providing alternatives to incarceration. The last section summarizes the paper and outlines various policy recommendations like analysis and realignment of the current justice system, increasing community participation in creating more suitable crime prevention approaches, reorganization of the prison system to foster inmate development through the inclusion of former prisoners, creating a strategy to combat recidivism and increasing vigilance to end all discriminatory practices masked as crime reduction approaches.
Context and importance of the problem
Racial inequality or racism/racialism is a social construct that hierarchically categorizes different races or ethnic communities to favor some to the detriment of others. In the United States, the Black and Latinx communities have been victims of institutional racism orchestrated by the White majority community (Hinton et al., 2018). Although the debate concerning racism has existed for centuries, it is surprising how the issue remains persistent even with the numerous laws, policies, and initiatives meant to ensure and safeguard equality in American society. Over the years, studies indicate that minority communities are highly represented in the U.S. prison system, with African Americans more likely to return to prison for violation of probation.
According to Spohn (2013), the debate concerning mass incarceration of minority communities in the United States has been long overdue. In response, the criminal justice system has initiated reforms and developed mechanisms to eradicate the disproportionality. Regardless, racial bias plays a critical role in determining vital justice procedures. Notably, in capital offenses, the race/ethnicity of the victims and the defendant highly influence the death sentence. In most cases, African Americans are more likely to get the death penalty than whites in a similar position (The Sentencing Project, 2008).
As Petit & Gutierrez (2018) stated, racial inequality in the administration of justice bears numerous adverse implications on the victimized communities. Quintessentially, racial bias affects the integrity of all the processes involved in delivering justice. These include arrests, trials, sentencing, incarceration, and release. Alternatively, racial inequality renders the targeted communities vulnerable to harassment and mistreatment by different organs of the justice system like law enforcement and the prosecution. Additionally, racial inequality limits ethnic minorities from accessing privileges like police protection. Notably, racialism in the administration of justice strengthens the marginalization of minority communities within political, social, and economic dimensions.In this light, the pervasive racial inequality in the U.S justice system has destroyed minority community families and social stability. Much worse, the trust between minority communities has significantly deteriorated due to mechanisms like the unnecessary over-policing of low-income neighborhoods (Petersilia, 1983).
Observably, the racial inequality manifested in the administration of justice stems from deliberate racism or neutral policies and processes that accidentally produce vindictive consequences for minority communities (Mauer, 2011). For instance, the Crack Vs Powder Cocaine law demonstrates an ulterior motive to punish low-income users and dealers who are mostly Blacks. Regardless, racial inequality contravenes numerous laws that promote equality while remaining a major cause of racial and cultural disunity. In this situation, reducing racial inequality requires a wide range of approaches covering the procedures and all the parties involved like the judiciary, law enforcement, and the prison system.
Existing policies, Policy options, and research
Despite the recent reforms, extensive research indicates that African Americans are still over-represented in the system. While the concern over racial inequality in the administration of justice has grown recently, it is safe to say that racialism in the justice system is not a new phenomenon. According to Hinton et al. (2018), the systemic racialism against Black people was created and strengthened through oppressive practices and policies meant to preserve slavery. Such policies included convict leasing and the Black code. Besides these punitive mechanisms, most crime prevention policies were designed keeping in mind that African Americans had a myriad of factors that exposed them to police arrests and convictions. For instance, as former slaves, African Americans were a much more impoverished community than whites. In this situation, policymakers noted that members from the Black community would have a higher propensity to commit a crime or get involved in illegal activities. This case made various stakeholders in the justice system possible to make unfavorable policies that ultimately led to mass incarceration. In addition, the media and federal crime reports built a bad reputation of African Americans as systemically irresponsible and criminal. For example, in 1970, a federal crime report indicated that African American arrests for rape, robbery, murder, and drug-related charges were the highest. However, it did not highlight whether the suspects were ultimately convicted of the offenses. A later publication indicated that a large portion of the suspects was acquitted (Hinton et al., 2018).
At the onset of independence, African Americans, poor Whites, the Latinx were mostly linked to criminal activities. However, institutions like schools and prisons raised the social status of the poor whites and the immigrant Hispanic communities while the criminal perceptions about African Americans remained unchanged. Much worse, the justice system’s offensive against African Americans was encouraged and perpetuated by high-ranking officials who promoted and glorified harsh measures in curbing criminal activities. However, much has transpired ever since there are significant changes due to the following policies.
- Mandatory minimum sentences
According to Hinton et al. (2018) mandatory minimum sentences refer to a rigid sentencing guideline in which specific offenses (especially severe crimes) attract specific sentences. In this situation, the judge’s ability to dispense justice according to his/her own reasonable and fair judgment is curtailed by the law. Typically, the main intention why the United States system adopted this policy was to ensure that convicted criminals serve particular sentences regardless of the judge’s leniency. In previous decades (before 1980), mandatory minimum sentences were rarely handed down, even on serious offenses. However, as the war against crime intensified, they became more popular, with most prosecutors using the leverage to coerce suspects into admitting guilt. Although mandatory minimum sentences were created to reduce serious crimes, they later became unfair to some quarters. For instance, the 100 to 1cocaine vs. crack rule was an unjust and partisan. Under any circumstances, it is difficult to understand how fair it is to hand a minimum sentence of 5 years to a person found guilty of possessing 1 gm of crack cocaine, same as another in possession of 100 grams of powder cocaine. Since most crack users were African Americans, the justice system found it fit to overlook the disparity so that the wealthy White powder cocaine users and traffickers could get less and convenient sentences even when found in possession of large amounts of drugs (Travis et al., 2014). Although the mandatory minimum sentence stated above was later scrapped through the adoption of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, it was already too late and much damage had already occurred to African Americans. Even the recent legalization of marijuana is a slap in the face of the African Americans who were massively arrested and incarcerated even for misdemeanor possession during the last decade. It is sad to note that the neutrality of recent drug laws cannot make it any better for the African Americans whose lives, families, and jobs were destroyed due to discriminatory policies (Gillon, 2018).
- T.I.S. (Truth-in-sentencing) laws
The T.I.S. program was officially created through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. According to Travis et al., (2014) the T.I.S. program required offenders to serve a larger portion of their sentences (75%) without the possibility of getting parole. Like other insensitive policies, T.I.S. was created as a deterrent measure to reduce the escalating crime wave. Regardless it failed miserably in achieving its main objective and thus, passes like any other oppressive policy. Since African Americans are arrested and convicted in large numbers, the T.I.S. program makes it convenient for them to serve longer sentences even when necessary. Such sentences are detrimental to the inmates and their families. Although Truth-in-sentencing does not apply differently to White and Hispanic prisoners, the African American community is ultimately the most affected due to its overrepresentation in the prison system.
- Three-strike laws
Like the mandatory minimums, the three-strike law is another policy that dictates sentencing procedures. In this case, once an offender commits a crime more than three times, the justice system considers them as habitual offenders (Crow & Johnson, 2008). As with other discriminatory laws, the three-strike policy was created to deter people from crime since they would receive harsh sentences if caught for the third time. Regardless, studies reveal that it turned into a less effective and more dangerous strategy. In the context of racial inequality, three-strike laws are among the major reasons for the mass incarceration of African Americans. Since there is an underlying notion linking African Americans to crime, poor Black neighborhoods are often over-policed and under federal scrutiny for drugs and gang activities (Travis et al., 2014). In this state of affairs, residents often get arrested and charged even for petty offenses. Due to over-policing and the threshold set by the three-strike laws, most people living within low-income neighborhoods are likely to get long sentences since the judge cannot overrule the law (Hinton et al., 2018).
d) The stop and frisk policy
Most governments across the world have implemented the stop and search policy. In the United States, it is normal for law enforcement to stop an individual or a group of people and conduct a physical search if they suspect that the individual or the group has or intends to commit a crime or has illegal or controlled substances like drugs and weapons. Typically, the law requires citizens to stop and oblige to the search, provide documents of information as requested. In recent years, the stop and frisk policy has emerged as a crucial tool in fighting organized crime. According to recent federal crime reports, increasing stop-and-frisk procedures have made the streets unimaginably safer (Huq, 2016). However, despite being numerously beneficial, research points out that the policy is often used for racial profiling and mistreating African Americans. According to recent studies conducted in North Carolina, Chicago, New York, police stopped and frisked people of color more than whites. For instance, over 23% of 125000 pedestrian stops made in New York (2016) involved African Americans (Hinton et al., 2018). Besides, studies show that during these procedures, African Americans are more likely to be arrested than any other race. These trends reveal that the stop-and-frisk policy is partially driven by racial discrimination against minority communities.
Besides the policies discussed above, several other factors contribute to racial inequality in the administration of justice. For instance, most African American suspects end up incarcerated for less serious charges cannot post bail, pay fines or afford effective legal representation due to poverty. Besides, judicial bias strengthened by stereotypes and myths has seen many African American suspects denied bail or, much worse, given undeserving sentences. For example, (Hinton et al., 2018) noted that most judges and jurors perceived dark-skinned suspects as more guilty compared to their White counterparts facing similar or more severe charges.
Policy options
Although this paper exclusively focuses on how racial inequality interferes with the administration of justice concerning African Americans, it acknowledges that other minority communities go through similar or worse experiences. Arguably, every minority community in the United States faces distinct challenges due to racialism. For instance, studies reveal that the strained border relations between the United States and Mexico continuously fuel a perception that most Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants (Ortiz &Telles, 2012). Due to this, Mexicans and people from other Latinx communities are often arrested and deported. In light of the policies highlighted and discussed in this paper, the following policy options are recommended in reducing racial inequality in the administration of justice.
- Ensuring fair trials and enhancing defense
The U.S. criminal justice system recognizes that all persons accused of committing a crime have a right to a fair trial. In this case, defendants are allowed to seek and access legal representation, and if not able, the state appoints a public defender. Although this approach promotes justice and fairness, it is surprising how the justice system fails to consider the defendant’s economic situation, prosecutorial bias, and the inefficacy of the overburdened public defenders. With these factors, hopes of a fair trial remain a pipe dream for suspects who cannot afford quality representation. Therefore, several measures should be taken into consideration. Firstly, the justice system should create a caseload limit for public defenders to ensure efficacy in representation (The Sentencing Project, 2008). Secondly, biased prosecutors and any other official in the system should be investigated and prosecuted as per 18 U.S.C. 243. Moreover, judicial institutions should collaborate in creating effective defense programs. Furthermore, the justice system should consider increasing resources and improving the public defense attorney’s working conditions to enhance their commitment and preparedness for their work. Lastly, the justice system should stick to its primary objective of proving guilt or innocence rather than punishing offenders from particular races.
- Creating equitable sentencing frameworks
Inconsiderate and discriminatory sentencing frameworks are among the most significant factors behind the mass incarceration of African Americans and other minority communities. However, as studies point out, the economic burden created by these measures outweighs their efficiency and relevance in fighting and preventing crime (Travis et al. 2014). In this light, there is a need to create more elaborate sentencing frameworks guided by correct rather than condemn offenders. Firstly, the legislature, Congress, and all relevant parties should repeal truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum, the three-strike laws, and any other policy limiting the judge’s discretion in sentencing. Besides, the justice system should promote and employ measures like community service, diversion, and probation as an alternative to incarceration. Furthermore, the prosecution must consider additional factors like the defendant’s financial ability before charging them for failing to pay fines. Lastly, the system should embrace racial, gender, cultural, and religious diversity in appointing judges, attorneys, and defense counsels (Trvais et al., 2014).
- Promoting reintegration of convicted felons into society
As most people would agree, everyone is vulnerable to mistakes, and thus, we all deserve second chances in life. On the contrary, the U.S. justice system seems to oppose this belief. In the United States, convicted felons face a more severe challenge after serving their sentences. Due to laws banning convicted felons from accessing fundamental amenities like voting and employment, they remain isolated and much worse dysfunctional in society. Due to lack of inclusion and desperation triggered by poverty, most succumb to recidivism (Flores, 2018). Observably, this trend has produced an unending cycle of poverty among African Americans. In this situation, there should be strategies to re-integrate convicted felons as useful community members. In doing this, local state and federal governments should ban post imprisonment restrictions that contribute to the exclusion of former prisoners in society. For instance, unnecessary background checks should be prohibited in employment and recruitment processes. Additionally, governments and other social institutions should maintain and promote family interactions with inmates throughout their periods of incarceration. Lastly, through the Second Chance Act (2007), federal and state governments should provide transitional jobs and housing as a foundation for formerly incarcerated individuals to reorganize their lives (Mauer, 2011).
- Redefining incarceration
Although this paper argues against incarceration, it is the most necessary and suitable approach to keep society out of danger posed by violent and hardcore criminals. Nonetheless, imprisonment should be more of a corrective than a retributive measure. In this light, inmates should have an opportunity to reform, develop skills, and make their lives more meaningful even when there is no possibility of getting out of prison. Presently, most prisons in the United States have evolved into centers for gang activities, drug trafficking, prostitution, and other organized crimes. In these circumstances, incarceration has lacked its disciplinary essence. To mitigate this crisis, it necessary to eradicate solitary confinement, curb prison inmate prostitution, increase awareness on human rights, conduct research and investigations, and involve formerly incarcerated people in inmate rehabilitation programs (Mauer, 2011).
- Promoting equity in policing
Presently, there is a wide social rift between African Americans and law enforcement in the United States due to police brutality and racial profiling. As stated, numerous studies have already proven that White police officers tend to effect unnecessary stops and searches on Black folks (Benbouzid, 2019). Therefore, the continuous deaths stemming from police brutality can only be attributed to systemic racism. Besides internalized enmity and mistrust between the police and the public, police misconduct significantly hinders community policing and other strategies to mitigate crime. FisrtlyTherefore, racialist officers should be prosecuted. Additionally, law enforcement should embrace racial diversity to ensure that officers are deployed within communities with which they are familiar with the culture. Moreover, police divisions should reduce car patrols so that officers can familiarize themselves with locals, decrease the cost of policing and reduce violent encounters with suspects.
Conclusion and Recommendations
From a historical perspective, the White majority community in the United States has exerted power and influence over minorities for centuries. A country born out of a struggle for liberty, freedom, and respect for human rights, it is inexplicable what minority communities have had to go through for all these years. While the government has ostensibly done much to foster equality, it is evident that slavery, oppression, and racial discrimination are alive and well in U.S. society. Due to the pervasive victimization of African Americans by the U.S. justice system, this study proposes a transformative course of action guided by the following recommendations;
- Revision of the existing U.S. criminal justice framework to eradicate harsh sentencing guidelines contributing to mass incarceration.
- Reorganization of policing to increase community participation and reduce the building tensions between law enforcement and the public
- Creation of collaborative strategies to enhance the penitentiary system and restore dignity and respect to formerly incarcerated individuals.
- Increasing vigilance and action against discriminatory practices, policies, and laws disguised as crime prevention measures.
Reference
Benbouzid, B. (2019). To predict and to manage. Predictive policing in the United States. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951719861703.
Crow, M. S., & Johnson, K. A. (2008). Race, ethnicity, and habitual-offender sentencing: A multilevel analysis of individual and contextual threat. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 63-83.
Esparza Flores, N. (2018). Contributing Factors to Mass Incarceration and Recidivism. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 6(1), 4.
Gillon, R. (2018). Mandatory Minimum — Destroying the Lives of the Black Community. Retrieved 11 June 2021, from https://medium.com/the-new-leader/mandatory-minimum-destroying-the-lives-of-the-black-community-e23165664f79
Hinton, E., Henderson, L., & Reed, C. (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice. May.
Huq, A. Z. (2016). The consequences of disparate policing: Evaluating stop and frisk as a modality of urban policing. Minn. L. Rev., 101, 2397.
Mauer, M. (2011). Addressing racial disparities in incarceration. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 87S-101S.
Ortiz, V., &Telles, E. (2012). Racial Identity and Racial Treatment of Mexican Americans. Race and social problems, 4(1), 10.1007/s12552-012-9064-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-012-9064-8
Petersilia, J. (1983). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Rand Corp.
Pettit, B., & Gutierrez, C. (2018). Mass incarceration and racial inequality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77(3-4), 1153-1182.
Spohn, C. (2013). Racial disparities in prosecution, sentencing, and punishment. The Oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration, 166-193.
The Sentencing Project. (2008). Reducing racial disparity in the criminal justice system.
Washington, DC: Author
Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences.
