As early as the history of minorities and the criminal justice system in the United States goes, judicial bias, lynching, discriminatory sentencing, and prosecutorial bias have contributed to the racial disparities in representation, sentencing, incarceration, parole, and probation. The United States is a racially diverse nation with democratic governance, but the society faces marginalization. The proportion of ethnic groups in the control system, especially for minority blacks, is far more significant than the ratio of the group’s population count. This disparity has mostly been caused by law enforcement policies and emphasis on community law enforcement. Crime control policies such as the war on drugs have been crime control policies that have brought about disparities in crime and justice (“reducing racial disparity”). Such other guidelines as the three strikes, truth in sentencing, and mandatory minimum sentencing were mostly enforced in the minority concentrated areas. This created a moral panic about crime and the threat of the African American group. This gave way to the manifestation of racial disparity in key justice systems as law enforcement, courts, and corrections.
Beside policies, racial bias is vital in fueling ethnic disparities in criminal justice. The existence of racism in society guarantees its effect on the justice system. Bias in the criminal system manifests inform of poor interactions with the community. In the courtroom, attitudes towards minority defendants suggest a lower status towards them. In corrections and prisons, hostility towards minorities from the staff. These sources out racial bias in the justice system.
In particular, African Americans make up 12.7 percent of the population, but 37 percent close to 40 percent of them are arrested for violent crimes (murder, rape, violent assault, and robbery). In the process, blacks are exposed to erroneous crimes by law enforcement. A black is 6 times more likely to be murdered than a white person. Data from the national crime victimization survey also shows that Native Americans as well experience victimization and violence.
Court system
The court system directly influences decisions for sentencing, incarceration, and parole. The U.S. Supreme Court is the crown of the American judiciary, but the state courts hear 95 percent of cases. Ethnic diversity in this high chamber has significantly fair based on race, religion, and geography. The majority of federal courts’ cases are decided by the judges who are essentially in district and circuit courts. Invaluably, judges from different backgrounds offer a comprehensive ability to analyze facts and life experiences bearing on them. Cases, especially from minority groups, require judges who identify with and contextualize with their historical hardships and miscarriages of justice that they have gone through. Thus diversity within particularly the federal bench becomes of essence in producing fairer decisions. Across the entire federal judiciary, there lacks judges of color, female judges, and the LGBTQ judges.
Demographic diversity of sitting and active judges in the district courts and court of appeals shows that the people of color make up 20 percent of sitting judges and 27 percent of active ones. African Americans make up 10 percent of the sitting judges and 13 percent of active judges. The Hispanic judges make up 7 percent of sitting and 9 percent of active judges. The Asian Americans make up 2.5 percent active and 4 percent sitting judges. Native Americas occupy the least amount, with less than 1 percent of the judges (Steele, 2020). Among the active judges, the white makes up 80 percent of the bench. In no single circuit is there a majority that comprises the people of color. Within every federal jurisdiction of the country, judges of color are underrepresented, and in some states, they are worse than others in terms of diversity.
The demographic diversity within the court system varies from state to state. For instance, in Texas, 40 percent of the population is Latino. However, on the Supreme Court, only 5 judges have served out of 76 judges since 1945. Since 1994, every black candidate out of the 19 judgeships has lost to white candidates in Alabama. Even in states with higher minority groups still is served by the majority group. The courts’ failure to represent the people does not reflect on the great American diversity. Lack of diversity affects decision making because only particular specific views are represented. In the district courts, 39 of the 91 article III district courts comprise of white judges. Only one district, the district of Puerto Rico, consists of entirely judges of color. In 13 district courts, only 14 percent represent active judges of color.
The U.S. court of appeals is always the last result for a majority of cases. Judges on the circuit courts influence a lot of power on outcomes and also in the development of U.S. law. The 7th circuit has no judges at all. On no circuit court do judges of color comprise more than 36 percent. Of all sitting circuit judges, African Americans make up 7.5 percent. Within two circuit courts, African Americans are entirely absent. The Hispanics make up 5.5 percent of sitting circuit judges and 7 percent of active judges in the entire court of appeals in the U.S. Also, five circuits do not have serving Hispanic judges active on the bench. Additionally, no American Indian judges serve on federal circuit courts.
Correction department
Racial disparities have characterized the American prisons for a long time. In the 20th century, blacks’ incarceration was three to nine times higher than that of whites. Around the country, there are over 1.3 million people jailed in state prisons. African Americans are the most affected by mass incarceration. Within the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Vermont, blacks’ incarceration rate to whites is 10 to 1, respectively. In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is blacks. Latinos are imprisoned at a rate of 1.4 more times compared to blacks. For Latinos, however, the rate differs between states. Compared to the whites, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania, Latinos’ incarceration is high. In Oklahoma, with a majority black, one person in every fifteen who is a young adult is in prison. People are not only incarcerated because of their crime but because of the racial policies, practices and beliefs. Within the last few years, however, evidence has shown that mass incarceration has been on the low. In a bid to reduce prison populations, justice system has resulted to smart sentencing.
Between 200 and 2016, the ethnic disparities narrowed across all four racial populations in the country. Between 2000 and 2016, the disparities fell from a ratio of 8:3 to 6:3. Further, in 2016 they fell to 5.1 for people in the state prisons (Sabol et al. 2019). Black white disparities in jails fell by 42 percent. Among the Hispanics, ratio disparities with the whites fell from 3.6 to 1.4. From 2014 to 2016, there was no racial disparity in prisons between whites and Hispanics. Probation and parole populations among blacks and Hispanics primarily decreased due to a decrease in the number of them under correctional control.
Sentencing imposed on the blacks additionally has always been 20 percent longer than those set on male whites for the same crime. Race also is a significant factor in determining which cases result in death sentences. However, with the current improvement in jail incarceration rates, which have fallen by 27 percent for blacks and 30 percent for Hispanics, sentencing has not been too harsh for the blacks. One particular note is that incarceration for whites has increased from 2000 to 2016 by 29 percent. The major significant player in the drop of African American incarceration rates has been due to a decline in arrest related to drug offenses. The black-white racial disparity also reduced in property crimes and also for violent offenses. Within gender boundaries, the rate of incarceration has majorly fallen for black women than men.
Probation and parole
For sentences that allow for parole release, the sentencing becomes harder for the people of color. Racial disparities exist in communal supervision and among correctional officers who will shape the parole’s outcome. In the parole systems, the people of color are also likely to face parole revoke with no much explanation. In Texas, for instance, research showed that parolees were revoked at a higher rate causing the question of biases present. Sometimes it is the parole decision making that falls on a discriminatory manner. These decisions impact on blacks serving longer sentences who barely receive parole.
Probation with little research on racial disparities in this area affects more adults in the criminal sanction. Probation supervision presents as the key to justice or to severe incarceration. Within the law, it is by command to offer the same supervision on probation and offer credible insights to the justice system as a probation officer. Hence much of the integrity and credibility of the feedback depends on the officer, and sometimes, when not driven by justice, it can lead to bias.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system, there is a need for a cohesive integration between policymakers, criminal justice leaders, and community groups. One of the initiatives that can help address the issue is shifting focus from drug policies. More effective ways of dealing with substance abuse, if implemented, would be able to curb mass incarcerations. Focusing more on result-oriented approaches such as public health models and community-based treatment would be more upcoming and beneficial to society than jail time. Such services do not rely on the justice system for services
Everyone should also be given an equal opportunity to the judicial system. Support for the election and appointment of minorities goes a long way in effecting justice for the minority groups. As said, different people have a unique dynamism that influences one to understand the other. Community-based sentencing should also be utilized to provide a broader range of support and solutions.
Assessment measures for the racial impact of criminal justice in decision making should be implemented. A system should be in place whereby unwarranted disparities in prosecutions can be analyzed and responded to. Representatives of the justice system and the community can act as task forces to review prosecutorial practices for the greater good of the public and in a bid to reduce racial disparity.
REFERENCE
Reducing racial disparity in the criminal justice system. The sentencing project. Research and advocacy for reform. Washington. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Reducing-Racial-Disparity-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System-A-Manual-for-Practitioners-and-Policymakers.pdf
Steele Kim. 2020. Examining the demographic compositions of U.S. circuit and district circuits. Center for American progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2020/02/13/480112/examining-demographic-compositions-u-s-circuit-district-courts/
Sabol J.W. et al. 2019. Trends in correctional control by race and sex. Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ). Retrieved from https://cdn.ymaws.com/counciloncj.org/resource/collection/4683B90A-08CF-493F-89ED-A0D7C4BF7551/Trends_in_Correctional_Control_-_FINAL.pdf