Ethnicity, Crime and Justice Flashcards
Black people make up just _% of the population, but _% of the prison population
- Black people make up just 3% of the population, but 13% of the prison population
Black people are _x more likely than their White counterparts to be stopped + searched, _x more likely to be arrested, and _x more likely to be in prison
- Black people are 7x more likely than their White counterparts to be stopped + searched, 3x more likely to be arrested, and 5x more likely to be in prison
Asian people make up _% of the population, but _% of the prison population
- Asian people make up 6.9% of the population, but 8% of the prison population
what are 2 other sources of statistics
- victim surveys
- self-report studies
outline victim surveys as an alternative source of statistics
- victim surveys such as the Crime Survey for England + Wales ask individuals what crimes they have been victims of - usually in the last year
- this provides information about ethnicity + offending; from which they show that a lot of crime is intra-ethnic (crime within, not between ethnic groups)
outline the limitations of victim surveys
- they rely on victims memory of events - Philips + Bowling: White victims may over-identify Black suspects - even if not sure
- they only cover personal crimes, which makeup only 1/5 of crimes
- they exclude under 10s: minority ethnic groups contain a higher proportion of younger people - excludes them
- they exclude crimes by + against organisations - tells us nothing about the ethnicity of corporate and white collar criminals
outline self-report studies as alternative form of statistics
- self-report studies ask individuals to disclose crimes they’ve committed
- Graham + Bowling: found that White and Black rates of offending were very similar (44% and 43%), but Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi were much lower (all under 30%)
- this is supported by evidence found by the Home Office
- these findings challenge the stereotype of Black people as more likely to offend than White people - but supports the view that Asian people are less likely to offend
what is the pattern of the CJS in terms of ethnicity
- at every stage of the criminal justice process, there are ethnic differences - e.g. higher proportion of Black people convicted
outline policing in the CJS process
- Philips and Bowling: since the 1970s, there have been many allegations of oppressive policing of minority ethnic communities
- for example, mass stop and search operations, paramilitary tactics, excessive surveillance, armed raids, police violence, a failure to respond effectively to racist violence/ hate crimes
outline stop and searches in the CJS process
- EM groups are more likely to be S+S by the police
- the police can use this power if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ of wrongdoing
- in 2020, Black people were 9x more likely to be S+S than White people
- the 2000 Terrorism Act enabled more Asian arrests as they were targeted
- EMs are more likely to think they are ‘over-policed and under protected’ + have limited faith in the police
outline the Terrorism Act
- the Terrorism Act passed in 2000 allowed police to stop + search people or vehicles whether or not they have reasonable suspicion
- stats show Asian people are most likely to be S+S under the Terrorism Act
outline use of force in stop and searches
- in 2019-2020, Black people were 4x more likely to have force used against them by Metropolitan police officers than White people
- they were also 5x more likely to be tased
what are 3 reasons for the disproportionate use of stop and searches against EMs
- police racism
- ethnic differences in offending
- demographic factors
outline police racism as a reason for the disproportionate use of stop and searches against EMs
- the Macpherson Report in the investigation of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence revealed racism in the Metropolitan police force
- others have found deeply ingrained racist attitudes among individual officers
- Phillips + Bowling: many officers hold negative stereotypes about EM groups as criminals, leading to deliberate targeting for stop + searches - these stereotypes are upheld by the ‘canteen culture’ of officers
outline ethnic differences in offending as a reason for the disproportionate use of stop and searches against EMs
- the disproportionate rates of stop and searches reflects ethnic differences in levels of offending
- there are high discretion and low discretion stops;
- low discretion stops: police act on relevant information about a specific offence - e.g. a description of the offender
- high discretion stops: police act without specific intelligence - police use stereotypes, in which discrimination is likely
outline demographic factors as a reason for the disproportionate use of stop and searches against EMs
- EM groups are over-represented in those who are most likely to be stopped + searched - e.g. youth, unemployed, WC
- these groups are all more likely to be stopped, regardless of their ethnicity, but they are also groups who have a higher proportion of EMs in them
outline arrests and cautions in the CJS process
- in 2018-19, the arrest rate for Black people was over 3x the rate for White people - but Black + Asian arrestees were less likely to receive a caution
- this may be due to how EMs are more likely to deny the offence + exercise their right to legal advice (due to mistrust of CJS)
- not admitting to the offence means they cant be let off with a caution + more likely to be charged
outline prosecution and trial in the CJS process
- the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decides whether a case should be prosecuted in court in which they decide if there is a realistic prospect of conviction + if prosecution is in public interest
- studies show that the CPS is more likely to drop cases against EMs, may be due to weaker evidence presented by police as its based on the stereotyping of EMs as offenders, not victims
- for the trial, EMs are more likely to present to a Crown Court, not a Magistrates Court, which has higher sentencing powers - may be due to mistrust of system
outline convictions and sentencing in the CJS process
- Black + Asian defendants are less likely to be found guilty - this suggests discrimination, in that police and CPS may be bringing weaker/ less serious cases against EMs
- Black offenders have imprisonment rates 1% higher, Asian offenders 3% higher than White offenders - this may be due to differences in the severity of the offences
- most EM crimes are intra-ethnic, and so this lower conviction rate of EM defendants could be deduced to lack of care about EM victims
outline pre-sentence reports in the CJS process
- a another 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 an offender
- however, Hudson + Bramhall: PSRs allow for discrimination - e.g. they found that reports on Asian offenders were less comprehensive + suggesting they were less remorseful than White offenders
- they place this bias in the context of ‘demonising’ Muslims from 9/11
outline prison in the CJS process
- in 2021: over 1/4 of the prison population were EMs
- Black + Asian offenders are more likely to serve longer sentences
- Black people are almost 4x more likely to be in prison than White people
outline the context behind Black crime in the UK
- large scale migration from the Caribbean began in 1950s
- from the mid-1970s, increased conflict between the police + African Caribbean community + higher arrest rates for street crimes meant that ‘Black criminality’ increasingly came to be seen as an issue
outline the context behind Asian crime in the UK
- it wasn’t until the 1990s that crimes 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) and 9/11 (the Islamist terrorist attacks in the USA) helped form the idea that Asian people - esp Muslims - were an enemy that threatened public order + safety
outline the 2 main explanations for ethnic differences in statistics
- Left Realism: stats represent real differences in rates of offending
- Neo-Marxism: stats are a social construct resulting from racist labelling + discrimination in the CJS
outline the Left Realist explanation for ethnic differences in statistics
- Left Realists such as Lea and Young argue ethnic differences in statistics reflect the real differences in the rates of offending by ethnic groups
- LRs say that relative deprivation, subcultures and marginalisation are the main causes of crime
- L + Y: acknowledges that the police often act in racist ways which results in unjustified criminalisation of EMs
- but they don’t believe discriminatory policing fully explains the differences in stats, as over 90% of crimes known to police are reported by public, showing how police discrimination is irrelevant
- furthermore, the differences in crime rates between Black and Asian are people are too significantly different - Police would have to be selective in their racism
- L + Y: concludes that stats represent the real differences in levels of offending between ethnic groups
outline an AO3 evaluation of the Left Realist explanation for ethnic differences in statistics
- Lea + Young can be criticised for their views on the role of police racism;
- e.g. arrest rates for Asians may be lower than for Black people not because they are less likely to offend, but because police stereotypes them differently
- Black people are seen as dangerous, Asian people as passive
- these stereotypes have changed since 9/11, as police now regard Asians as dangerous - thus explaining the rising criminalisation rates of this group
outline the Neo-Marxist explanation for ethnic differences in statistics
- Neo-Marxists argue that ethnic differences in statistics are the outcome of a process of social construction that stereotypes EMs as inherently more criminal than others
- Neo-Marxists such as Gilroy (myth of black criminality) and Hall (policing the crisis) illustrate these views
(Neo-Marxist explanations of ethnic differences in stats) outline Gilroy’s myth of Black criminality
- Gilroy: the idea of Black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African Caribbean + Asian people
- EM criminalisation is a result of the police + CJS acting on racist stereotypes and so are over represented in official stats
- G argues EM crime is a form of political resistance against a racist society holding its roots in British imperialism
- most Black + Asian people in the UK originated from former British colonies where their anti-imperialist struggles taught them how to resist oppression - e.g. riots
- in the UK, they have adopted a similar strategy, but their political struggle has been criminalised
(Neo-Marxist explanations of ethnic differences in stats) outline AO3 evaluations of Gilroy’s myth of Black criminality
- 1st Gen immigrants in the 50s + 60s were very law-abiding, so its unlikely they passed down a tradition of anti-colonial struggle to their children
- most crime is intra-ethnic, so EM crime cant be seen as anti-colonial struggle against racism - Lea + Young argue Gilroy romanticises street crime as revolutionary
- Asian crime rates are similar to/ lower than Whites - if G was right, then Police are only racist to Black people + not Asians
(Neo-Marxist explanations of ethnic differences in stats) outline Hall’s policing the crisis
- Hall: argues the 1970s saw a moral panic over Black ‘muggers’ that served capitalist interests
- in times of crisis, such as the economic crisis in the 70s, the ruling class are less able to rule the subordinate classes through consent
- this economic crisis led to rising unemployment + strikes whilst conflict in Northern Ireland was rising
- in times of growing opposition to capitalism, the ruling class resorts to force to maintain control - this use must be seen as legitimate or it may provoke more widespread resistance
(Neo-Marxist explanations of ethnic differences in stats) outline the moral panic in Hall’s policing the crisis
- the 1970s also saw the emergence of a media driven moral panic about the supposed growth of a new crime, ‘mugging’ - was just a new name of violent street robbery
- there was no evidence of a significant increase in this crime - ‘mugging’ was then associated by the police, media and politicians with the Black youth
- the myth of the ‘Black mugger’ served as a scapegoat to distract attention from the true cause of social issues - the capitalist crisis
- the ‘Black mugger’ symbolised the disintegration of social order - Black youth were presented as a threat to the fabric of society, divided the WC on racial grounds, weakened opposition to capitalism + won support for authoritarian forms of rule to supress opposition
(Neo-Marxist explanations of ethnic differences in stats) outline Hall’s alternative cause of Black youth crime
- Hall doesn’t argue that Black youth crime was solely a caused by media + police labelling
- the crisis of capitalism was increasingly marginalising Black youth through unemployment, driving some into crime as a means of survival
(Neo-Marxist explanations of ethnic differences in stats) outline AO3 evaluations of Hall’s policing the crisis
- Downes + Rock: argues that Hall is inconsistent in claiming that Black street crime was not rising, but also that it was rising because of unemployment
- Hall doesn’t explain how the capitalist crisis led to a moral panic, nor do they provide evidence that the public were blaming crime on Black youth
- left Realists: inner-city residents’ fears about mugging aren’t panicky, but realistic
name 2 more recent approaches of explaining ethnic differences in crime rates
- FitzGerald’s explanation of the role of neighbourhood factors
- Sharp + Budd’s explanation of getting caught
outline FitzGerald’s explanation of neighbourhoods as a reason for ethnic differences in crime rates
- FitzGerald examines the role of neighbourhood factors in explaining the apparently greater involvement of Black youths in street robbery
- rates were highest in very poor areas + also where deprived young people came into contact with more affluent groups
- young Black people were more likely to live in these areas + to be poor, but White people affected by these factors were also more likely to commit street crimes - thus ethnicity wasn’t a cause
outline Sharp and Budd’s explanation of getting caught as a reason for ethnic differences in crime rates
- some groups are more at risk of being caught of crimes - e.g. Black offenders
- this could be due to how Black people are more likely to commit crimes such as robbery, where victims can identify them, and to have been excluded from school or associate with known criminals - factors which raise their ‘visibility’ to authorities
outline racist victimisation
- racist victimisation occurs when an individual is targeted because of their race, ethnicity or religion
- it was brought into greater public focus with the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 + the handling of it by the police
- information on this comes from 2 main sources; victim surveys and police recorded statistics which cover racist incidents (incidents perceived to be racist) and racially/ religiously aggravated offences (where the offender is motivated by hostility towards a racial/ religious group) - e.g. assault, harassment
in 2019/2020 there were _ racial hate crimes and _ religious hate crimes in the UK
- in 2019/2020 there were 76,000 racial hate crimes and 6,800 religious hate crimes in the UK
outline the extent and risk of victimisation
-the risk of being a victim of any crime depends on ethnicity; people from mixed ethnic backgrounds had a higher risk (20%), Black (14%), White (13%) and Asian (13%)
- the differences may be the result of other factors such as being young, male and unemployed are all strongly linked to being victims of violent crimes, however factors such as unemployment may be the result of discrimination
- Sampson + Phillips: racist victimisation tends to be ongoing over time through small instances, from which the long term psychological impact needs to be added to the physical injury + damage to property caused by offenders
outline responses to victimisation
- members of EM communities have often been active in responding to victimisation - ranging from situational crime prevention (e.g. fireproof doors) to organised self-defence campaigns aimed at defending neighbourhoods from racist attacks
- such responses need to be understood in the context of the lack of protection by the police, who often ignore the extent of racist victimisation
- e.g. the Macpherson Enquiry in 1999 concluded that the police investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence was impaired by professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers
