ASONGAFEH NDOBEGANG

SOWK 697 Diversity, Oppression and Social Justice.

Race, Ethnicity and Juvenile Justice System: Explaining
Police Discrimination in Post Arrest Decision Making.




The over-representation of racial and ethnic minorities particularly blacks in the criminal
justice system in North America is alarming. This equally holds true for the over-representation
of youths from these racial minorities. The disparity and consequent over-representation of
these minorities in the criminal justice system is said to exist when the proportion of a racial
groups within the control of the system is greater than the proportion of such groups in the
general population (The Sentencing Project, 2008). This assertion can been supported with
findings of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (0JJDP) (2004), that in
1999, the representation of minority youths in the juvenile system was 65% in public facilities
and 55% in private facilities even though they represented just 34% of youths in the general
population. Furthermore, a recent United States government report titled Race and the
Criminal Justice System, held that 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 (Jones and Singer, 2008). The
critical question here is whether the overrepresentation of these minority groups has been as a
result of discrimination in the juvenile justice systems. It is necessary to explore discrimination
by understanding how racial and ethnic differences can be used as incentives and justification
for discrimination. Discrimination in this context is the unequal treatment of young persons
who come in contact with the criminal justice system as a result of their race and ethnic
background. Discrimination can either be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination is said to have
occurred when one person treats another less favorably because of their language, religion,
culture, ethnicity or race while indirect discrimination occurs where treatment that may be
seen as equal in a formal sense is in effect discriminatory in its effect on the individual or group
(May et al. 2010). To better understand differential treatment, it is crucial to understand ways
in which institutions like the police force, justice systems and correctional services
operationalize discrimination. A notable example of the institutionalization of discrimination in
law enforcement is what has been termed by Zatz and Mann (1998), as petit apartheid.
According to Zatz and Mann (1998), this concept includes daily informal interactions between
the police and minorities, such as stop-and-question and stop-and-search police practice.
Considering that the first point of contact into the juvenile justice system is with the police
force, it all too well seems like a good place to start when looking at the over representation of
minority groups in this system and the role that law enforcement may play in sustaining this
disparity. In effect it is important to explore how police discrimination may have resulted to this
phenomenon in the first place. Research from the last few decades have established a rough
and turbulent relationship among youths from racial minorities particularly blacks/immigrants
and the police in America.
The support behind the views that youths from racial and ethnic minorities are over-
represented in the juvenile justice system seems to be overwhelming. However, the argument
that this over-representation is as a result of discrimination (biases) at all levels of the criminal
justice system, particularly at first meeting with the police is highly debatable. The research on
this assertion has been inconclusive as different research has produced contradictory findings.
Nonetheless some schools of thought have propounded some sort of explanation for the
disparity in the representation of youths in the criminal justice system.
The first reason for the over representation of minorities in the criminal justice system relates
to demographics and differential involvement in crime by young people from these minority
groups. With demography one would be looking at the proportion of young people from racial
and ethnic background in conjunction with the proportion of white children within the same
age group. For example a Census statistics conducted in 2001 indicated that there were more
youth from ethnic minorities than from whites in that community. The Census concluded that
half of the mixed race group, 38% of other black groups, 38% of Bangladeshis and 35%of
Pakistanis were under the age of 16, as opposed to just 20% of white groups (Office of National
Statistics, 2005). Because there are more young people from the minority groups under the age
of 16 it can be assumed that more young people from these minority groups would come in
contact with the police and consequently there will be more minorities in the system
everything being equal. In addition to demography, deferential involvement in crime has been
advanced as one of the reasons for the over representation of minorities in the justice system.
This proposition is very controversial because it suggests that young people from minority
groups have a high propensity to commit offences and that in fact they are more involved in
crime than their white counterparts. This conclusion was reached after a self-reporting study
that asked young people about crimes they have committed. A 2004 MORI self-reporting school
survey reported that black children aged 11 to 16 are more prone to admitting to offences
committed (36%) than their white friends (26%) (MORI Youth Survey, 2004). These self-
reporting studies are advantageous because it provides a proper measure of engagement in
crime irrespective of whether these crimes were ever reported. Contrary to this is the assertion
from other self-reporting surveys which have found very opposing results. For instance Graham
and Bowling (1995) found very similar rates of offending between whites and blacks aged 14 to
25. As a result of these disparities in research findings differential involvement in crime is
inconclusive as a reason for the over representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the
juvenile justice system.
More so, legislative decisions at the federal, state and local levels have been advanced by many
commentators as one of the reasons fostering the disparity in the representation of racial and
ethnic minorities in the justice system. It is argued that this has created a criminal justice
system with very fixed laws regarding prohibited behaviors, penalties for violations, and
processes by which cases are disposed and through which sentences are determined (The
Sentencing Project, 2008). These laws generally have disproportionate impacts on minority
communities, impacts which ought to have been easily identified before the laws were passed.
One of such areas which have this disproportionate impact on the minority communities is the
war on drugs. The war on drugs is a series of collective drug policies which have had
considerable effect on the number as well as the composition of people incarcerated for drug
offences (The Sentencing Project, 2008). There is no denying the fact that the number of
colored people incarcerated for drug offences outweighs their proportion of drug-using
population (The Sentencing Project, 2008). In a 2004 survey of federal and state inmates, it was
noted that 17% of state and 18% of federal inmates offended to raise money for drugs, about
half of the inmates (53% of state and 45% of federal inmates) met the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) for substance abuse (Mumola and Karberg, 2006). No
need to emphasis that young people from racial minoritys particular blacks are more prone to
engage in such activities as a result of the reasons mentioned previously.
This section is worth concluding with the final and most mentioned cause of racial disparity in
the juvenile criminal justice system. It should be noted that the above mentioned causes
though able to independently influence the over representation of young minorities, they often
go concurrently with differential policing/police discrimination. More so, because the police
force is normally the first point of contact for most if not all youth entering the juvenile justice
system and they can play an instrumental role as to who enters and who is diverted away from
the system (May et al., 2010). According to Bowling & Phillips (2002), ethnic minority groups
particularly black youths and adults are victims of pervasive ongoing targeting by police. This
has been christened by Macpherson (1999) as institutional racism. Webster (2006) equally
mentioned that police activities play a major role in engaging young people from ethnic
minorities into the juvenile justice system. There are a number of ways in which police activities
can recruit youths from minority groups into the system. Most notable of these activities is stop
and search. The power to stop and search by police officers is one if not the most controversial
issues in policing in many developed countries. The Home Affairs Select Committee (2007),
found that black youths are almost twice as likely as their white peers to enter the criminal
justice system as a result of the stop and search powers exercised by police.
Some have argued that racial profiling and racial animus are instruments which have been used
by police to increase the gap of proportionality between ethnic and racial minority groups and
whites in the juvenile justice system. In as much as the benchmarks employed in racial profiling
research have limitations (Alpert, Smith, & Dunham, 2004), blacks and Hispanics are still over
represented amongst persons stopped and searched (Michael & Geoffrey, 2007). Alpert Group
(2004) noted that once these blacks and Hispanics are stopped they are more likely than whites
to be searched, arrested and some times more likely to receive harsher treatment or citations.
It is important in this case to address whether and to what extent police officers who have
negative feelings (Allports attitudes) can use their authority to act on these feelings and
knowingly treat members of racial groups in a punitive manner (Michael & Geoffrey, 2007). The
Rodney King incident in Los Angeles were phrases like gorillas in the mist was used by officers
of the police department goes a long way to support the allegation that police officers continue
to use racial profiling in the execution of their duties (Michael & Geoffrey, 2007).
It is evident from the forgoing that there is an over-representation of young racial and
ethnic minorities in the juvenile justice system. There is equally strong argument that, coupled
with the many reasons for the existence of this phenomenon, police discrimination/biases
stands out as a major factor as they are usually the first point of contact with these youths and
because of the degree of discretion in deciding whether or not a youth goes through the
system. What is most significant and consistently omitted in this discuss is providing a
theoretical explanation for the discrimination against and consequent disparity in the
representation of these youths in criminal justice. One of the most common theories from
which racial discrimination research draws from, is the consensus and conflict theory. The
consensus school of thought holds that individuals and states share values, which are set up to
protect the interest of the society through criminal law (an instrument for protection) and that
rational factors like prior convictions and gravity of offence will determine punishment (Cyndi
Banks, 2013). Contrary to this is the view of conflict theorists who hold that society is composed
of groups with conflicting values, with the state set up to represent the interest of the powerful
ruling class while criminal law serves as an instrument of protection for the elite class and
factors like race and social class influences punishment (Cyndi Banks, 2013). Conflict theorists
hold that those groups which threaten the power of the ruling class are very likely to be socially
controlled; therefore these groups are easily criminalized and heavily incarcerated. They argue
that minority groups (racial and ethnic), the unemployed and the poor are groups that threaten
the elite class (Chambliss and Seidman, 1971). Since blacks youths are a minority group, mostly
unemployed because of their low levels of education and experienced poverty, they are more
likely to come in contact with law enforcement and suffer high rates of incarceration. The
conflict theory can be traced as far back as the 1890s in the era of segregation in the southern
parts of United State where black Americans (youths inclusive) were considered as threat to the
dominant white class and therefore subjected to strict social control, criminalized and
incarcerated with impunity. This means that many African American youth were particularly
targeted as they fit the category for groups which pose a threat to the powerful. In addition,
street crimes which have been a target of law enforcement and a crime mostly engaged in by
the poor and by racial minorities, as well as vagrancy laws clearly exhibit the existence of
conflict theory (Cyndi Banks, 2013). In as much as law enforcement fits as protectors of the
ruling elite in the conflict theory, these police officers also discriminate because they are
challenged by their emotional responses (like fear and anger) and concerned for their personal
safety in the course of their interactions with these minority groups (Cyndi Banks, 2013). As a
result of these there is a tendency to arrest and detain racial and ethnic minority youths based
on the perception of threat rather than actual threat.
Another theoretical explanation for discrimination (by the police) is the symbolism of social
conflict drives crime control. Here the perception of threat is influential in designing crime
control policies rather than actual threat. This position has been supported by a Washington
State study which noted that the number of nonwhites in the criminal justice systems was
higher in areas with large minority populations as justice officials and leaders in these
communities demonstrated public concern with dangerousness and found minority groups as
threats (Cyndi Banks, 2013). It was noted that crime is a minority problem and certain lifestyles
and dressing styles were considered as a code for race and a signal of criminality respectively.
As a result young people from racial and ethnic minorities who exhibit this unacceptable
lifestyle, dressing, poor and underclass are seen as a threat not only to the ruling elite but
equally to the middle working class who form a majority of the American society (Cyndi Banks,
2013). Thus they are subjected to social control, more likely to come in contact with law
enforcement, face higher levels of criminalization and incarceration resulting to their over
representation in the justice system.
Another significant explanation of the existence of racial discrimination in the criminal justice
system particularly at the first point of contact (law enforcement) is the theory of unconscious
racial stereotyping. This theory was developed by social psychologists who tried to measure
how people respond to each other in different ways based on their perceived membership in a
particular group (Michael, R. & Geoffrey, P., 2007). This theory is based on the relationship/link
between stereotypes, prejudice attitude and discriminatory behavior. According to Mackie et
al. (1996), stereotypes are cognitive structures constructed in the mind of the perceiver, and
this cognitive structures are composed of the perceivers knowledge, values, believes and
expectations regarding a particular social group. It is worth noting that one of the groundings of
these constructs is sociocultural. Therefore were a person is born and raised, the societys
collective knowledge, general perceptions, believes and values is learnt and incorporated by
that individual. Mackie et al. (2007), noted that American police officers are typically native-
born citizens who have been raised in to the American social and cultural milieu. These native
born Americans who form the bulk of the police force grow up in societies with shared
stereotypes about racial and ethnic minorities. These stereotypes are reinforced by their
parents, teachers, political and social leaders and the mass media (Stangor & Schaller, 1996).
Therefore these white young native born Americans who represent the cultures and
communities from which they originate grow up believing in the full panoply of stereotypes and
biases about racial and ethnic minority groups which eventually plays a major role in decision
making as police officers, judges or other professionals (Mackie et al. 2007). In addition socio-
structural and economic competition can equally be used to explain the occurrence of
discriminatory behavior by police, thus the over representation of young people from minority
groups in the juvenile justice system.
More so, social identity theory offers another critical explanation as to why police officers who
are mostly young and from the dominant white class can discriminate against youths from
racial and ethnic minority groups. It is important to state that this theory is backed by the social
foundation of stereotypes. Commentators like Tajfel & Turner (1997), hold that this theory
emphasizes that identifying to a group serves to bolster self-esteem; therefore individuals have
an incentive to favor the groups they identify with over other groups. This assertion has been
made evident by a number of research studies which assigned random subjects to groups and
evaluated positive group qualities (Brewer, 1979). Since a majority of these police officers can
identify with the dominant white majority the social identity theory would claim that they
would be more tolerant with youths whom the identify with (white) and consequently less so
with youths from other groups (racial and ethnic).
Finally, the illusory correlation phenomenon is another cognitive process that can explain the
existence of racial stereotypes and police discrimination. For social psychologists the concept
refers to alleged connection between two classes of events which may not be correlated or
which are correlated to a lesser extent than claimed to guide decisions (Chapman, 1967). This
concept has been extensively researched by Hamilton and Giffords (1976), who held that
individual, cognitive basis for the formation of group stereotypes man reinforce existing socially
learned or culturally transmitted stereotypes. By implication police officers may connect
events which are not at all correlated in decision making which may result to poor judgment
and eventual discrimination.
Haven examined some of the reasons advanced for the over-representation of racial and
ethnic youths in the juvenile criminal justice system and haven identified police discrimination
as one of the most important factors sustaining this phenomenon, I further provided a
theoretical explanation for the existence of racial discrimination in the police force. From the
forgoing one can make the following recommendations for a reduction or eradication of racial
discrimination in law enforcement and an eventual reduction in the over representation of
young minorities in the juvenile system.
First of all calling for better training of the police force particularly culturally-specific orientation
training for officers working in areas with a substantial number of minority groups. Such
recommended training should educate the officers on the residents, organization and cultural
characteristics of the neighborhoods and enhance officers understanding of the cultural
composition of the community in question. Some commentators have argued that in order to
achieve professionalism in the policing of young people, officers at the front line need to be
trained on effective ways of communication which is sensitive to cultural differences and
acknowledges diversity (The Sentencing Project, 2008). Again police officers who are promoted
to leadership and supervisory positions should be culturally competent and educated about
issues relating to race and race relations (The Sentencing Project, 2008).
In addition law enforcement (police) should resort to alternative for police arrest and custody
for minor offenders and for minor crimes. Alternatives like questioning, warning and release
that are least sever sanctions for minor offences. Police officers can refer young offenders to
community agencies like Big Brother/Big Sister, Runaway centers and mental health agencies.
Diverting these young offenders from the juvenile justice system to other social services gives
first time offenders and troubled youths the opportunity to be rehabilitated out of the criminal
justice system and thereby reducing the proportion of young people in the criminal justice
system and hopefully reducing the over-representation of ethnic and racial minorities in the
system. Furthermore to better deal with the purported discrimination in the police force, police
departments should engage in community policing approaches.
It is worth recommending that police officers try to minimize the influence of unconscious racial
stereotypes on police behavior. Therefore policing with an objective to break down the
cognitive scripts on which stereotypes are based can be crucial in changing officers attitude
and behavior (Michael & Geoffrey, 2007). According to Michael & Geoffrey (2007), officers who
are assigned to predominantly high crime and minority neighborhoods for extended periods of
time can develop scripts that make them suspicious of minorities. Consequently, they are
calling for the rotation of officers out of units at regular intervals in order to reduce the
possibility of developing racial stereotypes.
In conclusion it is important to note that after looking at the available literature on
discrimination, one can say that discrimination occurs in the policing of youths from racial and
ethnic minority groups and at different levels in the juvenile criminal justice system. However
there is limited evidence of any systematic discrimination or an overt bias of police officers in
the execution of their duties. The theoretical explanation of discrimination goes to support the
claim that despite the contradictions in the available evidence police discrimination against
racial and ethnic youths is possible and evident by the over-representation or disparity in the
number of youths from racial and ethnic minority involved in the juvenile criminal justice
system.






REFERENCES
Alper, G. p., Smith, M. R., & Dunham, R. (2004). Towards a better benchmark: Assessing the
utility of not-at-fault traffic crash data in racial profiling research. Justice Research and Policy, 6,
44-69.
Alpert Group (2004). Miami Dade Racial Profiling Study. Columbia, SC: Author.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive
motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86,307 324.
Bowling, B. & Phillips, C. (2002). Racism, crime and justice. Harlow: Longman.
Chapman, L. J. (1967). Illusory correlation in observational report. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 6, 151 155.
Cyndi, B., (2013). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Library of Congress Cataloging in
publication data. 3rd edition.
Graham, J. & Bowling, B. (1995). Young people and crime. London: Home Office.
Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A
cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392
407.
Jones, A. & Singer, L. (2008). Statistics on race and the criminal justice system-2006/7. A
ministry of justice publication under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. London:
Ministry of Justice.
Mackie, D. M., Hamilton, D. L., Susskind, j., & Rosselli, F. (1996). Social psychological
foundations of stereotype formation. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds),
Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 41-78). New York: Guilford.
Macpherson, W. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Report of an inquiry by Sir William
Macpherson of Cluny, advised by Tom Cook, The Right Reserved Dr. John Sentamu and Dr
Richard Stone. CM 4262-1. London: The Stationary Office.
Michael R. S., & Geoffrey P. A. (2007). Explaining police bias: A theory of social conditioning and
illusory correlation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007; 34;1262.
MORI Youth Survey 2004, (2004). London: Youth Justice Board.
Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2006). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisons,
2004. Washington, D,C., Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mya, T., Gyateng, T., Hough, M., Bhardwa, B., Boyce, I. & Oyanedel, JC. (2010). Differential
treatment in the youth justice system. Institute for criminal research kings college London.
Office for National Statistics (2005). Focus on ethnicity and identity. London: A National
Statistics Publication.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), (2004). Juvenile courts statistics.
Retrieved from: www.ncjrs.gov/htmi/ojjdp/209736.
Stangoe, C., & Schaller, M. (1996). Stereotypes as individual and collective representation. In C.
N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 41-78). New
York: Guilford.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An intergrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. &
Worchel, S (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.33 47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/cole.
The Sentencing Project (2008). Reducing racial disparity in the criminal justice system. A manual
for practitioners and policymakers. Retrieved from: www.sentencingproject.org