Higher Arrest Rates Of Black Drug Offenders example essay topic

Racial Disparity in the Correctional Population Racial Disparity in the Correctional Population Racial disparity in the correctional population refers to the difference in the number of minorities versus whites represented inside institutions. "The American Correctional Association acknowledges that racial disparity exists within adult and juvenile detention and correctional systems. This contributes to the perception of unfairness and injustice in the justice system ('ACA Policies and,' 2004)."Blacks comprise 13% of the national population, but 30% of people arrested, 41% of people in jail, and 49% of those in prison. Nationwide, blacks are incarcerated at 8.2 times the rate of whites (Human Rights Watch, 2000)". This difference in proportionality does not necessarily involve direct discrimination; it can be explained by a number of combined factors. Correctional agencies do not control the number of minorities who enter their facilities.

Therefore, the disparity must come from decisions made earlier in the criminal justice process. Law enforcement, court pre-sentencing policies and procedures, and sentencing all have a direct affect on the over representation of minorities in the correctional population. The prospect of a racially discriminatory process violates the ideals of equal treatment under law under which the system is premised (Kansal, 2005). Law enforcement, as the frontline of the criminal justice system has a great deal to do with who ends up being incarcerated. Law enforcement personnel are the initiating beings who start the path to incarceration for individuals they come in contact with.

Their decision in terms of making a stop, making a report, making an arrest and so on determines if and how that individual will enter the criminal justice system. One discriminating practice used by police officers is racial profiling. This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching potential criminal suspects in vehicles or on the street based solely on their racial appearance (Human Rights Watch, 2000). This type of profiling has contributed to racially disproportionate drug arrests, as well as, arrests for other crimes. It makes sense that the more individuals police stop, question and search, the more people they will find with reason for arrest. So, if the majority of these types of stop and frisk searches are done on a certain race then it makes sense that that race would have a higher arrest rate.

This is the problem that racial profiling creates and it is most obvious in drug arrests. The "War on Drugs" established that the impact of incarceration would be used as a weapon to combat the illegal drug problem in this country. Unfortunately, this war against drugs has fallen disproportionately on black Americans. "Blacks constitute 62.6% of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons in 1996, whereas whites constituted 36.7%. The drug offender admissions rate for black men ranges from 60 to an astonishing 1,146 per 100,000 black men.

In contrast, the white rate begins at 6 and rises no higher than 139 per 100,000 white men. Drug offenses accounted for nearly two out of five of all black admissions to state prisons (Human Rights Watch, 2000)". The disproportionate rates at which black drug offenders are sent to prison originate in racially disproportionate rates of arrest. This brings up the question; do blacks use drugs more than whites?

Contrary to public belief, the higher arrest rates of black drug offenders do not reflect higher rates of drug law violations. Whites, actually, commit more drug crimes than blacks. "By 1988, with national anti-drug efforts in full force, blacks were arrested on drug charges at five times the rate of whites. Statistical as well as anecdotal evidence indicate drug possession and drug selling cut across all racial, socio-economic and geographic lines. But, because drug law enforcement resources have been concentrated in low-income, predominantly minority urban areas, drug offending whites have been disproportionately free from arrest compared to blacks (Human Rights Watch, 2000)."According to the most recent National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHS DA) survey, in 1998 there were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72% of all users) and 2.0 million blacks (15%) who were current illicit drug users in 1998. There were almost five times as many current white marijuana users as black and four times as many white cocaine users.

Almost three times as many whites had ever used crack as blacks. Among those who had used crack at least once in the past year, 462,000 were white and 324,000 were black. Only among current crack users did the number of blacks exceed the number of whites -- and this was a change from previous years in which the number of current white crack users had exceeded the number of black users. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) also estimated that in 1998 there were 4,934,000 whites who used marijuana on 51 or more days in the past year, compared to 1,102,000 blacks, and 321,000 whites who had used cocaine on 51 or more days in the past year compared to 171,999 blacks (Human Rights Watch, 2000)."The circumstances of life and the public nature of drug transactions in low income urban neighborhoods make arrests far easier there than in other neighborhoods. In poor black neighborhoods, drug transactions are more likely to be conducted on the streets, in public, and between strangers, whereas in white neighborhoods -- working class through upper class -- drugs are more likely to be sold indoors, in bars, clubs, and private homes. In poor urban minority neighborhoods, it is easier for undercover narcotics officers to penetrate networks of friends and acquaintances than in more stable and closely knit working-class and middle-class neighborhoods.

In addition, low income purchasers of cocaine buy the drug in the cheap form of single or several hits of crack. They must engage in far more illegal transactions to satisfy their desire for drugs than middle or upper class consumers of powder cocaine who have the resources to buy larger and longer lasting supplies. The greater frequency of purchases and sales may well affect susceptibility to arrest (Human Rights Watch, 2000)". It should now be coming clear as to how law enforcement and its disproportionate arrest rate of minorities affect the correctional population. This however, is not the only phase in the criminal justice process that leads to over representation of minorities incarcerated. Pre-sentencing court procedures have an indirect effect on higher minority incarceration rates.

These procedures include pre-sentence detention, use of a hired private attorney, and plea bargaining. "A study released in 1991 found that black defendants faced a much higher probability of being jailed prior to trial (as opposed to being freed on bond (pending trial) than white defendants, and that pretrial detention made incarceration following conviction more likely. Another study found that black defendants faced a higher probability of being jailed prior to trial, and as a result were convicted of more serious offenses (than similarly situated defendants who were freed pending trial), and that convictions on more serious charges resulted in longer sentences. In other words, both studies found that black defendants were more likely to be detained pending trial, and as a result, received harsher sentences (Kansal, 2005)". Another factor to look at is the higher unemployment rate among minorities. Even if bail is set, without money for the bond pretrial release is no tan option.

So, higher unemployment rates mean less available money for bond which means higher chances of pretrial detention which in turn means a greater chance of conviction and a harsher sentence. Attorneys have a great deal of discretion when it comes to the trial phase of the criminal justice system. This discretion has a direct effect on the sentencing phase. Regarding the effect of the defense attorney on sentencing, a study released in 1996 found that whites were much more likely to hire a private attorney than blacks or Latinos, and that retention of a private attorney tended to result in less severe sentences (Kansal, 2005). This goes back to the higher minority unemployment rate. Money is necessary to pay a private attorney.

Minorities again are placed in a vicious cycle; higher rates of unemployment, lower rates of hiring a private attorney, equals a greater chance of a harsher sentence. Public defenders are given to defendants who cannot afford a private attorney and although indigent defendants are represented the statistics do not show in their favor. Prosecutors can actually end the criminal justice process stage by dismissing the charges and dropping the case altogether. "In 1991 the San Jose Mercury News reviewed almost 700,000 criminal cases from California between 1981 and 1990 and uncovered statistically significant disparities at several different stages of the criminal justice process. Among the study's findings was that six percent of whites, as compared to only four percent of minorities, won "interest of justice" dismissals, in which prosecutors dropped a criminal case entirely (Civilrights. org, 2002)". They can also choose to route the case through other programs where the offender is more likely to become rehabilitated.

In this case, the study found, 20 percent of white defendants charged with crimes providing for the option of diversion received that benefit, while only 14 percent of similarly situated blacks and 11 percent of similarly situated Hispanics were placed in such programs (Civilrights. org, 2002). "The same study revealed consistent discrepancies in the treatment of white and non-white criminal defendants at the pretrial negotiation stage of the criminal process. During 1989-1990, a white felony defendant with no criminal record stood a 33 percent chance of having the charge reduced to a misdemeanor or infraction, compared to 25 percent for a similarly situated black or Hispanic (Civilrights. org, 2002)". The sentencing phase is the last phase before incarceration. After offenders have progressed to this phase they have already passed through the other racially discriminate phases of the system. The offenders who actually reach the sentencing phase are already more often minorities due to the ciphering of whites out of the system during previous stages.

"The decision to sentence a convicted criminal to prison has, until recently, been viewed as a profound responsibility, one entrusted solely to impartial judges. Increasingly, however, sentencing has become mundane and mechanistic, a decision affectively controlled by legislators, prosecutors and sentencing commissioners. This change in the culture of sentencing has had disastrous consequences for minorities in the United States (Civilrights. org, 2002)."One of the most thorough studies of sentencing disparities was undertaken by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, which studied felony sentencing outcomes in New York courts between 1990 and 1992. The State concluded that one-third of minorities sentenced to prison would have received a shorter or non- sentence if they had been treated like similarly situated white defendants. If probation-eligible blacks had been treated like their white counterparts, more than 8000 fewer black defendants would have received prison in that two year period, resulting in a five percent decline in the percentage of blacks sentenced to jail as a percentage of the entire sentenced population. In short, the study found, blacks are sentenced to prison more frequently than whites for the same conduct (Civilrights. org, 2002)."Another study of the Pennsylvania State Correctional System published in 1998 found both in terms of the decision to incarcerate and in terms of the length of sentence, blacks received harsher sentences than whites, younger offenders received harsher sentences than older offenders, and males received harsher sentences than females.

The confluence of these three factors results in young black males being sentenced particularly harshly. A number of other recent studies have found similar evidence indicating that young black and Latino males are sentenced more harshly than white males (Kansal, 2005)."A number of scholars suggest that young black and Latino males tend to be punished more severely than their white counterparts or black and Latino males of a different age because they are perceived to be particularly dangerous and problematic. As a result, judges single them out for incarceration (and, to a lesser degree, for longer prison terms for public safety reasons). Another hypothesis contends that rather than judges viscerally and indiscriminately sentencing young, black and Latino males to harsher sentences, they seek to assess the real threat that a particular offender presents to society.

As judges possess imperfect information, however, they develop a "perceptual shorthand" that is informed by stereotypes about race, age, and gender. In the interest of protecting society, sentencing judges will therefore sentence the offender based, in part, on stereotypes about perceived antisocial and incorrigible natures of young black and Latino males (Kansal, 2005)". In conclusion, it is important to remember that sentencing is just one phase of the criminal justice process, and the outcomes evident in this area are reflective of decisions made at prior points in the system. In order to attempt to reduce racial disparity in the correctional population, law enforcement arrest decisions, charging practices, indigent defense representation, pre-sentence investigation procedures, and provision of sentencing alternative options must be addressed. Reducing this racial disparity is extremely important in order to produce fairness and to uphold the ideals upon which the system is premised. Also, unless the justice system is perceived as fair and just, trust and confidence will erode and public cooperation with the system will diminish.

Recommendations to reach this goal are to establish accreditation's for law enforcement, increase the data collection, and continue to diversify the workplace, and reform court procedures and sentencing guidelines.

Bibliography

Civilrights. org. (2002, April 13).
Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights / Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. Retrieved, from Civilrights. org Web site: web T. (2005).
In M. Mauer (Ed. ), Racial disparity in sentencing: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved, from The Sentencing Project Web site: web Rights Watch. (2000, May).
United States Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs (Vol. 12, No. 2 (G) ). New York: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved, from Human Rights Watch Web site: web Policies and Resolutions. (2004, October).