Ethnicity, Crime and Justice Flashcards
Black people, are over-represented in OCS. For example:
- Black people make up just 3% of the population, but 13% of the prison population.
By contrast, White people are under-represented at all stages of the criminal justice process. As the Ministry of Justice noted in 2008:
Members of our Black communities are seven times more likely than their White counterparts to be stopped and searched, three and a half times more likely to be arrested, and five times more likely to be in prison.’
Victim surveys
Victim surveys such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) ask individuals to say what crimes they have been victims of
For example, in the case of ‘mugging’, Black people are significantly over-represented among those identified by victims as offenders.
Victim surveys also show that a great deal of crime is intra-ethnic - that is, it takes place within rather than between ethnic groups.
Limitations of Victim Surveys:
- They rely on victims’ memory of events. Phillips and Bowling (2012), evidence suggests that White victims may ‘over-identify’ Black suspects, saying the offender was Black even when they are not sure.
- They only cover personal crimes, which make up only about a fifth of all crimes.
- They exclude the under 10s: minority ethnic groups contain a higher proportion of young people.
- They exclude crimes by and against organisations (such as businesses), so they tell us nothing about the ethnicity of white collar and corporate criminals.
Self-report studies
Based on a sample of 2,500 people, Graham and Bowling (1995) found that White and Black rates of offending were very similar (44% and 43%), but Indian (30%), Pakistani (28%) and Bangladeshi (13%) rates were much lower.
The Home Office has conducted nine self-report studies on drug use since the early 1990s, all with similar findings. For example,
Sharp and Budd (2005) found that 27% of males of ‘Mixed’ ethnicity said they had used drugs (mostly cannabis) in the last year, compared with 16% of both Black and White males and 5% of Asian males.
Use of Class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine was much higher among White people than among Black or Asian people.
However, self-report studies have their limitations in relation to ethnicity and offending.
Overall, the evidence on ethnicity and offending is inconsistent. For example, while official statistics and victim surveys point to the likelihood of higher rates of offending by Black people, this is generally not borne out by the results of self-report studies.
Policing
Phillips and Bowling (2012), since the 70s there have been many allegations of oppressive policing of minority ethnic communities, including:
‘mass stop and search operations, paramilitary tactics, excessive surveillance, armed raids, police violence and deaths in custody, and a failure to respond effectively to racist violence.’
Stop and search
Compared with White people, in 2020 Black people were nine times more likely to be stopped and searched.
Data from the British Crime Survey and the CSEW indicate similar patterns.It should be noted that only a small proportion of stop and searches result in arrest.
In addition, under the Terrorism Act 2000, police can stop and search persons or vehicles whether or not they have reasonable suspicion. Statistics show that Asian people are more likely to be stopped and searched than other people under the Terrorism Act.
** Phillips and Bowling (2007),** ethnic minority members are more likely to think they are ‘over-policed and under-protected’ and to have limited faith in the police
Use of force
In 2019/20, Black people were four times more likely to have force used against them by Metropolitan police officers than White people, and five times more likely to have Taser-like devices used against them by the force (Grierson 2020).
Police racism
The Macpherson Report (1999) on the police investigation of the racist murder of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence concluded that there was institutional racism within the Metropolitan Police. Others have found deeply ingrained racist attitudes among individual officers.
**Phillips and Bowling (2012) **point out that many officers hold negative stereotypes about minority ethnic groups as criminals, leading to deliberate targeting for stop and search. Such stereotypes are endorsed and upheld by the ‘canteen culture of rank and file officers.
Ethnic differences in offending
An alternative explanation is that disproportionality in stop and searches simply reflects ethnic differences in levels of offending.
However, it is useful to distinguish between low discretion and high discretion stops.
* In low discretion stops, police act on relevant information about a specific offence, for example a victim’s description of the offender.
* In high discretion stops, police act without specific intelligence. It is in these stops, where officers can use their stereotypes, that disproportionality and discrimination are most likely.
Demographic factors
Minority ethnic groups are overrepresented in the population groups who are most likely to be stopped, such as the young, the unemployed, manual workers and urban dwellers. These groups are all more likely to be stopped, regardless of their ethnicity, but they are also groups who have a higher proportion of ethnic minorities in them, and so minorities get stopped more.
Arrests and cautions
Figures for England and Wales show that in 2018/19 the arrest rate for Black people was over three times the rate for White people. By contrast, Black and Asian arrestees were less likely than White arrestees to receive a caution.
One reason for this may be that members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to deny the offence and to exercise their right to legal advice (possibly out of mistrust of the police). However, not admitting the offence means they cannot be let off with a caution and are more likely to be charged instead.
Prosecution and trial
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the CPS must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest.
CPS is more likely to drop cases against minority ethnic groups. Bowling and Phillips (2002) argue that this may be because the evidence presented to the CPS by the police is often weaker and based on stereotyping of minority ethnic groups as criminals.
When cases do go ahead, members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to elect for trial before a jury in the Crown Court, rather than in a magistrates’ court, perhaps due to mistrust of magistrates’ impartiality. However, Crown Courts can impose more severe sentences if convicted.
Convictions and sentencing
Black and Asian defendants are less likely to be found guilty.
This suggests discrimination, in that the police and CPS may be bringing weaker or less serious cases against members of minority groups that are thrown out by the courts.
However, a study of five Crown Courts by **Roger Hood
(1992) **found that, Black men were 5% more likely to receive a custodial sentence, and were given sentences on average three months (and Asian men nine months) longer than White men.
Pre-sentence reports
One possible reason for harsher sentences is the pre-sentence reports (PSRs) written by probation officers. A PSR is intended as a risk assessment to assist magistrates in deciding on the appropriate sentence for a given offender.
However, Hudson and Bramhall (2005) argue that PSRs allow for unwitting discrimination. They found that reports on Asian offenders were less comprehensive and suggested that they were less remorseful than White offenders. They place this bias in the context of the ‘demonising’ of Muslims in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001.
Prison
In 2021, just over a quarter of the prison population were from minority ethnic groups.
Black people were almost four times more likely to be in prison than White people. Black and Asian offenders are more likely than White offenders to be serving longer sentences (of four years or more).
Within the total prison population, all minority groups have a higher than average proportion of prisoners on remand (awaiting trial rather than actually being convicted and serving a sentence). This is because defendants from minority ethnic groups are less likely to be granted bail while awaiting trial.
Finally, we can note the existence of similar patterns in other countries. For example, in the United States, two out of five prisoners held in local jails (both convicted and those awaiting trial) are Black, while one in five is Hispanic.
Explain the differences in offending
mid-1970s, increased conflict between the police and African Caribbean community and higher arrest rates for street crime meant that ‘Black criminality’ increasingly a problem
not until the 90s that crime by Asian people began to be viewed as a problem, with media concerns about the growth of ‘Asian gangs’.
The events of 2001 - widespread clashes between police and Asian youths in towns in northern England and 9/11 (the Islamist terrorist attacks in the USA) - helped to crystallise the idea that Asian people, and especially Muslims, were an ‘enemy within’ that threatened public order and safety.
As we have seen, official statistics on the criminal justice process show differences between ethnic groups. The question is therefore how we explain these patterns. There are two main explanations for ethnic differences in the statistics:
* Left realism: the statistics represent real differences in rates of offending.
* Neo-Marxism: the statistics are a social construct resulting from racist labelling and discrimination in the criminal justice system.
Left realism
Lea and Young (1993) argue that ethnic differences in the statistics reflect real differences in the levels of offending by different ethnic groups.
Left realists see crime as the product of relative deprivation, subculture and marginalisation. They argue that racism has led to the marginalisation, and economic exclusion of minority ethnic groups, who face higher levels of unemployment, poverty and poor housing.
simultaneously, the media’s emphasis on consumerism promotes a sense of relative deprivation by setting materialistic goals that many members of minority groups are unable to reach by legitimate means.
According to Lea and Young, one response is the formation of delinquent subcultures, especially by young unemployed Black males. Producing higher levels of utilitarian crime, as a means of coping with relative deprivation. Because these groups are marginalised and have no organisations to represent their interests, their frustration is liable to produce non-utilitarian crime such as violence and rioting.
Left Realism and Police Racism
Lea and Young acknowledge that the police often act in racist ways and that this results in the unjustified criminalisation of some members of minority groups.
However, they do not believe that discriminatory policing fully explains the differences in the statistics. Lea and Young argue that we cannot explain the differences between minorities in terms of police racism. For example, Black people have a considerably higher rate of criminalisation than Asian people. The police would have to be very selective in their racism - against Black people but not Asian people - for it to cause such differences.
Left Realism Criticisms
However, Lea and Young can be criticised for their views on the role of police racism. For example, arrest rates for Asian people may be lower than for Black people not because they are less likely to offend, but because police stereotype the two groups differently, seeing Black people as dangerous, Asian people as passive. Furthermore, these stereotypes may have changed since 9/11, because police now regard Asian people too as dangerous - thus explaining the rising criminalisation rates for this group.
Neo-Marxism
The differences in the statistics do not reflect reality. These differences are the outcome of a process of social construction that stereotypes minority ethnic groups as inherently more criminal than the majority population. The work of the neo-Marxists Paul Gilroy (1982) and Stuart Hall et al (1979) illustrates this view.
Gilroy: the myth of Black criminality
Black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African Caribbean and Asian people.
In Gilroy’s view, minority ethnic group crime can be seen as a form of political resistance against a racist society, and this resistance has its roots in earlier struggles against British imperialism. Gilroy holds a similar view to that of critical criminology,
Black and Asian people in the UK originated in the former British colonies, where their anti-imperialist struggles taught them how to resist oppression, through riots and demonstrations. When they found themselves facing racism in Britain, they adopted the same forms of struggle to defend themselves, but their political struggle was criminalised by the British state.
However, Left Realists Lea and Young criticise Gilroy on several grounds:
- First-generation immigrants in the 1950s and 60s were very law-abiding, so it is unlikely that they passed down a tradition of anti-colonial struggle to their children.
- Most crime is intra-ethnic (criminals and their victims usually have the same ethnic background), so it can’t be seen as an anti-colonial struggle against racism. Lea and Young argue that, like the critical criminologists, Gilroy romanticism street crime as somehow revolutionary, when in their view it is nothing of the sort.
- Asian crime rates are similar to or lower than for Whites.
If Gilroy were right, then the police are only racist towards Black people and not Asians, which seems unlikely.
Hall et al: policing the crisis
Stuart Hall et al also adopt a neo-Marxist perspective. They argue that the 1970s saw a moral panic over Black ‘muggers’ that served the interests of capitalism.
Hall et al also argue that the ruling class are normally able to rule the subordinate classes through consent. However, in times of crisis, this becomes more difficult. In the early 1970s, British capitalism faced a crisis. High inflation and rising unemployment were provoking widespread industrial unrest and strikes, while conflict in Northern Ireland was intensifying and student protests were spreading.
At such times, when opposition to capitalism begins to grow, the ruling class may need to use force to maintain control. However, the use of force needs to be seen as legitimate or it may provoke even more widespread resistance.
Hall et al Moral panic
70s a media-driven moral panic about ‘mugging’. this was just a new name for the old crime of street robbery with violence, and Hall et al note that there was no evidence of a significant increase in this crime at the time.
The myth of the ‘Black mugger’ served as a scapegoat to distract attention from the true cause of problems such as unemployment - namely the capitalist crisis.
‘Black mugger’ came to symbolise the disintegration of the social order. the moral panic divided the working class on racial grounds and weaken opposition to capitalism, as well as winning popular consent for more authoritarian forms of rule that could be used to suppress opposition.
However, Hall et al do not argue that Black youth crime was solely a product of media and police labelling.
The crisis of capitalism was increasingly marginalising Black youth through unemployment, and this drove some into a lifestyle of hustling and petty crime as a means of survival.
Hall et al have been criticised on several grounds:
- Downes and Rock (2011) argue that Hall et al are inconsistent in claiming that Black street crime was not rising, but also that it was rising because of unemployment.
- They do not show how the capitalist crisis led to a moral panic, nor do they provide evidence that the public were in fact panicking or blaming crime on Black youth.
- Left realists argue that inner-city residents’ fears about mugging are not panicky, but realistic.
Neighbourhood
FitzGerald et al (2003) neighbourhood factors Black youths in street robbery. rates were highest in poor areas, and also where deprived young people came into contact with more affluent groups.
Young Black people were more likely to live in these areas and to be poor.
However; White people affected by these factors were also more likely to commit street crime.
Thus, ethnicity as such was not a cause. However, Black people may be more likely to live in poor areas because of racial discrimination in the housing and job markets.
Getting caught
Sharp and Budd (2005)Black offenders were more likely than White offenders to have been arrested. Reasons included that they were more likely to commit crimes such as robbery, where victims can identify them, and to have been excluded from school or to associate with known criminals - factors that raised their ‘visibility’ to the authorities.
Ethnicity and victimisation
Racist victimisation is nothing new, but was brought into greater public focus with the racist murder of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the subsequent inquiry into the handling of the police investigation (Macpherson 1999).
Information on racist victimisation comes from two main sources: victim surveys such as the CSEW, and police-recorded statistics. These generally cover:
* Racist incidents Any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or another person.
* Racially or religiously aggravated offences (such as assault, wounding, criminal damage and harassment) where the offender is motivated by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group.
