A Major Reproducer of Social Inequalities Due to Law Enforcement and the Judicial Court System

Abstract: This paper focuses on the social inequalities produced by the criminal justice system and how that contributes to the disproportionate distribution of punishment in the United States.

The institution that is a key reproducer of social inequalities in the U.S. is the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is significant and plays a major role in upholding social control by imposing penalties on those who have been arrested, convicted, prosecuted, or sentenced for committing criminal offenses (National Center for Victims of Crime).

The criminal justice system comprises law enforcement, the court system, and correctional facilities. Law enforcement and the judicial court system are two important constituents of this institution that contribute to the reproduction of social inequalities in the U.S. There is a lack of equal judicial administration and legislation which often leads to the disparaging degrees in sentencing for people of different races, socioeconomic statuses, and genders. Furthermore, the disproportionate enforcement of laws across people of various races, socioeconomic statuses, and neighborhoods contributes to these rising social disparities and upholds the statistic that the prison population in the U.S. is unparalleled in comparison to other countries. Thus, these two components of the criminal justice system exhibit prejudices that solidify the fact that this institution causes the unequal distribution of punishment in the U.S. and the reproduction of inequalities in society.

Mass incarceration reflects enormous racial disparities as well as existing inequalities in the enforcement of laws and policies. In 2015, African Americans and Hispanics constituted 56% of the prison population in the United States. Additionally, African Americans were incarcerated five times more than the whites and African American females were incarcerated twice as much as white females(http://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/). These statistics illustrate the disparities in incarceration of people of colour in America. According to Wakefield and Uggen, sociologists believe that crime has been politicized and the disproportionate number of races imprisoned in jail is most likely a direct result of political and institutional processes, racial threats, and lingering fear of African Americans, especially men. They concur that the consistent racial character in prisons is less about controlling the crime rate, and more about controlling and managing minority groups that are seen as dangerous and disruptors of peace (Wakefield and Uggen 2010:393). Incidents such as stops, searches, and arrests without reason of people of colour based on their race is a reflection of unjust police policy and implementation by the criminal justice system. Stop and frisk is an example of a racially discriminatory law enforcement policy due to the fact that it led to the increase in arrests of African Americans and other minorities by stopping them more frequently than whites. This leaves little doubt that racial bias is a key factor in stops without cause as well as higher imprisonment of minority groups (Rudovsky 2001:303).

The enforcement of criminal laws, violated by both minority and white offenders, is fairly equal, yet there’s a more aggressive and unequal distribution of punishment in areas with a higher concentration of minority groups (Rudovsky 2001:307). A major factor in the increase of imprisonment disparities in the 20th century was the “War on Drugs.” For instance, the crackdown on crack cocaine, often referred to as the “epidemic,” punished users of crack cocaine more harshly than users of powder cocaine. Most offenders caught using crack cocaine were poorer African Americans because the drug was cheaper and more accessible than powder cocaine (Rudovsky 2001:316). As a result, African Americans were arrested and punished more frequently for drug-related offenses than whites.

The disproportionate number of minorities, especially African Americans, incarcerated every year directly results from racial discrimination by law enforcement and legislative officials. This discrimination, particularly against African Americans who are perceived as deviants, embodies the concept of deviance and labeling. A deviant, by societal standards, is someone who strays outside institutional norms and destabilizes the community. African Americans are more likely to be labeled as deviant or an outsider by the criminal justice system, regardless of whether they’ve violated a rule or norm (Becker 1963:9). This is problematic as once someone is labeled as deviant, they may begin to assume behaviors associated with the label, leading to an increase in criminal acts committed by African Americans and heightened enforcement of judicial laws against minorities. Law enforcement officers have the political power to dictate the labels people receive in society, resulting in disproportionate arrests across races (Becker 1963:18). This underlines how the criminal justice system perpetuates racial inequality. However, the enforcement of laws and policies can also replicate inequities across different socioeconomic classes.

Socioeconomic status, along with a person’s neighborhood, directly influences the enforcement of laws in that area. Individuals who are of lower socioeconomic status tend to live in poorer neighborhoods where policing is more intense. On the flip side, most people of higher socioeconomic status reside in middle or upper-class neighborhoods where law enforcement is less strict. Based on the research of Rios, he observed the paradox of under-policing and over-policing in minority communities where those of lower socioeconomic status live. Minor issues were often overlooked by police in favor of more visible forms of crime and deviance. Law enforcement officers controlled lower socioeconomic communities, hyper-criminalizing younger residents who displayed certain types of behaviors, such as involvement in drugs, violence, and other criminal acts (Rios 2010:54). This created the perception that these neighborhoods, predominantly comprised of minority individuals with lower socioeconomic status, were heavily policed due to the frequency of specific crimes in these areas. Many officers presumed that most people, particularly men, in these communities were involved in criminal activities. Their focus on controlling crime, instead of protecting residents, inadvertently encouraged young men to resort to violence or adopt “the code of the street” (Rios 2010:73). This perpetuated a cycle where labeling increased criminalization, and this increased criminalization in turn led to increased policing.

In contrast, people with higher socioeconomic statuses in middle and upper-class neighbourhoods are policed less. This is due to the fact that crime rates in these neighbourhoods are lower, as residents are less likely to resort to crime in order to survive. Additionally, there is less chance of getting involved in violence such as gangs, which are more prevalent in poorer areas. Overall, the enforcement of laws in various neighbourhoods results in an increase in the imprisonment of residents, predominately minorities, living in poorer communities. Though the law enforcement component of the criminal justice system causes disparities in arrests and imprisonment across races, the criminal court system also displays inequalities in the sentencing of offenders across races.

There is increasing evidence that the criminal court system causes sentencing disparities and social stratification among people of different races and/or ethnicities. Further research has found that sentencing outcomes reveal consistency in judicial administration for all defendants. However, upon closer analysis, racial and ethnic disparities appear (Steffensmeier and DeMuth 2000:705). Firstly, prior research in the late 20th century suggested that socially disadvantaged or minority groups are prone to harsher treatment by government officials due to their lack of resources to resist the negative labels assigned to them (Steffensmeier and DeMuth 2000:708). This concept is embodied in the concept of labeling hype. Labeling is used by institutions of social control to control, mark, and stigmatise those they believe are a threat to society. This creates a cycle in which minorities, predominantly males, accept the label assigned to them, which often leads to engaging in more criminal-like behaviour (Rios 2011:45). Secondly, judges’ limited time and information about offenders when sentencing can contribute to further disparities in sentences. When information is lacking or missing about an individual, stereotypes may be used to fill the gaps.

Most minority groups are perceived as having lower socioeconomic status and presumed to lack the resources to resist labels that predispose them to criminality. Because of this, many researchers believe this increases the severity of sentencing for African Americans and Hispanics (Steffensmeier and DeMuth 2000:710). According to the regression analysis conducted by Steffensmeier and DeMuth, whites, whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic, on average received the shortest sentences. Blacks, whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic, received the longest sentences, especially in drug-related cases (Steffensmeier and DeMuth 2000:716). Additionally, African American males were more likely to receive the death penalty than whites for crimes of the same magnitude (Brayne 2018). Despite the fact that African Americans and Hispanics are sentenced to disproportionately longer sentences than whites, differences in sentencing also exist between males and females.

The criminal court system has played a part in the inconsistent sentencings between women and men. According to empirical research, “the average sentence for males is 278.4% greater than females” (Mustard 2001:296). Mustard believed that the difference in sentencing was due to the fact that males tend to have a longer criminal record as well as a propensity for more serious crimes, even after controlling for offense levels, history of criminal activity, and the type of offense. His research consistently portrayed the statistic that females receive “5.5 fewer months” in prison than males (Mustard 2001:297). Other factors contribute to this inequality in sentencing, such as education and socioeconomic status, however, evidence still suggested that women received more favourable outcomes than men.

Further to this, females are more likely to receive no prison term, in comparison to males, if offered the option. There are several reasons as to why females are judged less harshly than males during sentencing trials. For example, some researchers attribute this to societal constructs like paternalism or chivalry, on the part of the judges or law enforcement officials (Spohn and Beichner 2000). Gender stereotypes dictate these individuals’ potential feelings of duty to protect women. Furthermore, Spohn and Beichner argued judges who sentence female criminals are influenced more by intensive thoughts such as who was at fault for the crime, and the associated social cost of incarcerating a woman. An example of such a cost is the potential disruption a maternal incarceration may cause to a family unit, especially to dependent children.

Ultimately, gender-linked criteria are unconsciously applied during the sentences of men and women. Men are more likely to receive longer sentences because they tend to commit more heinous and serious crimes. Nonetheless, when comparing similar crimes committed by both genders, disparities arise (Spohn and Beichner 2000). This suggests the criminal justice court system contributes to the sentencing inequalities between genders. Notwithstanding, research showed that women receive lighter sentences due to existing gender stereotypes constructed by society. Importantly though, whilst the criminal justice system influences this disproportionality in sentencing, it should be recognized that an intersectionality of factors, such as race and gender or class and race, are all impacted by law enforcement and judicial systems.

The intersection of race, class, and socioeconomic status, coupled with gender, is key to fully understanding how the criminal justice system reproduces inequalities in these social aspects through its disproportionate policing and enforcement, as well as the uneven administration of judicial laws. The major term here is intersectionality. This concept signifies that social factors, such as race, gender, economic status, and ethnicity, act upon an individual as a solitary unit, creating overlapping systems of discrimination that cause disadvantages to an individual or groups of people (Collins 2015:2). Intersectionality is crucial because it allows one to understand why certain viewpoints and prejudices are present in the components of the criminal justice system and how society consistently reinforces them. The criminal justice system displays this concept through the unequal enforcement of laws and administration of legislations. A court case, Degraffenreid vs. General Motors, is important because a group of black women claimed that the company’s policies discriminated against black women – a phenomenon otherwise known as compound discrimination (Brayne 2018). However, anti-discrimination laws argued that a person could only be discriminated against based on one factor, not a combination of two. These policies overlooked the entry point of intersectionality pertaining to race, gender, etc., which resulted in the continued discrimination of black women in the workforce and ongoing inequality in society.

Despite the criminal justice system and all its components aiding in reproducing social inequalities, this institution also utilizes methods to reduce inequities within society. Imprisonment can transform the lives of the incarcerated by improving prospects for offenders when they return to their neighbourhoods after serving their sentences. People who are imprisoned are normally disadvantaged socially and economically and tend to reside in poorer areas, so prison reform programs offer an opportunity for these offenders to get a second chance. Most prisons implement rehabilitation programs that aim to reform inmates by providing opportunities to obtain a high school diploma, take college classes, or learn more vocational skills which can improve their employment prospects (Wakefield 2010:399). Rehabilitation within prisons and jails allows offenders to acknowledge their errors through anger management, therapy, or drug treatment sessions (Brayne 2018). Additionally, the imprisonment of criminals can positively impact the neighbourhood by restoring the community, removing the source of crime, and reducing the probability of recurrent criminal acts. The enforcement of laws by officials and the sentences provided by judges ensure that criminals are kept off the streets. Although the criminal justice system produces inequalities, it also serves to reduce the possibility of future criminal acts and increases the chances of inmates having a better life through rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system, comprised of three important constituents – law enforcement and government officials, correctional facilities such as prisons and jails, and the court system, work together to regulate and govern crime in American society. Numerous research paints a picture of how the enforcement of laws and the judicial administration of sentences dole out unequal punishment among people of various races, genders, socioeconomic statuses, and neighbourhoods, with a particular focus on African Americans in socially and economically disadvantaged areas. All in all, this institution has been proven to reproduce these social inequalities in the United States.—

Citations

1.      https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1932&context=faculty_scholarship

Rudovsky

2. http://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/

Statistics

3. Wakefield and Uggen: file:///C:/Users/godfr/Downloads/Week%2011_Wakefield%20(1).pdf

4. Sentencing disparities: https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/pdf/2657543.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:eef477fce4380f159b3e16ac0a853915

5. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.828.1693&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Females and Males Sentencing Rates

6. Collins

7. Rios

Brayne, Sarah. 2018. “Crime and Deviance.” Austin, Texas.

Brayne, Sarah. 2018. “Intersectionality.” Austin, Texas.

Anon. n.d. The Criminal Justice System. Retrieved March 23, 2018.

Did you like this example?

974

51