This is the second set of six blogposts on the inflammatory subject of the interaction between African-Americans and the United States Justice System. The first three considered the arguments of the critics of the American system; and the second set of three, presented now, will take up the counter argument.
The apologists for the U.S. Judicial System—the critics of the critics of the U.S. Judicial System say no.
The mantra that African-Americans and Hispanics are treated unfairly and unequally is so frequently repeated that the repetition has led to these allegations gradually acquiring the status of conventional wisdom. There is another side to the issue.
Here is the case against the concept that African–Americans are treated unfairly in the American Justice system:
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—an extensive, scientific survey of U.S. residents conducted annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics–determined that:
1. During the Arrest Phase: Victims of violent crimes–including robbery, rape, and assault–are usually able to see an attacker well enough to identify at a minimum the perpetrator’s skin color and usually additional features such as other distinguishing physical characteristics, such as sex, height, weight, and clothing. Since these descriptions are generally what enable the police to make arrests in such cases, even the most racist officer has very little room for discretion; i.e., he or she cannot arbitrarily arrest a Black person if a victim identifies a White offender.
NCVS data show that—statistically–the average Black is far more likely than the average White to be identified by a victim as the perpetrator of a violent crime. This racial gap, moreover, is approximately equal to the racial gap in actual arrest rates. The earliest solid evidence for this dates back to 1978, when a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found that the rates at which victims and witnesses identified Blacks and Whites, respectively, as perpetrators were essentially equal to the rates at which Blacks and Whites were arrested for those particular crimes, not surprisingly. There is no plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.
Furthermore, the race of the police officers does not appear to play a role in the aforementioned figures. If it were true that racial discrimination by White police officers contributes to the high arrest rate of Blacks, it would logically follow that the arrest-related decisions of Black officers should differ significantly from those of their White colleagues; i.e., one would expect Black officers to arrest Blacks a lower rate than do White officers. There is no evidence of such a difference, however. Black and White officers have very similar arrest patterns whether they are arresting Whites or Blacks.
In 2005, the black homicide rate was over seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined.
2. Police brutality. As described in Blogpost I, the vast majority of Blacks and the critics of the criminal justice system in the U.S. consider police brutality to be common and more likely to be directed at them than at Whites. On the contrary, there is a considerable body of empirical evidence suggesting that Black suspects are treated no worse than White suspects in similar situations, i.e. when their demeanors toward the police are similar, and their crimes are equivalent. Research further shows that both White and Black police officers are more likely to use excessive force against antagonists of their own race than against those of another race. Black officers as a group are more likely than their White colleagues to shoot black suspects. While this may be partly because black officers more frequently patrol black neighborhoods, Black and White officers who work only in Black neighborhoods are equally likely to shoot black civilians.
3. Disposition and Prosecution Phase: After an arrest is made, the next decision points in the criminal-justice process are: whether or not to indict and bind over to trial an accused person, whether to go to trial, whether to convict a defendant, and then finally, whether to impose a harsh or a mild sentence. Critics of the judicial system contend that White defendants are not only acquitted more regularly than their black counterparts, but are treated more leniently even in cases where they are found guilty, all because of racism. Such disparate treatment, say the critics, explains why, as of December 31, 2010, Blacks—seventeen percent of the U.S. population–constituted nearly thirty-eight percent of all prisoners under state and federal jurisdiction—whereas non-Hispanic whites—sixty-four percent of the population–were just thirty-two percent of prisoners, and Hispanics—sixteen percent of the population–were twenty-two percent of prisoners. While Black males were incarcerated at a rate of 3,074 per 100,000, the corresponding rates for White and Hispanic males were 459 and 1,258 per 100,000, respectively.
However, there are studies that differ with the critics’ point of view. In 1997, two criminologists reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism per se, explained why more Blacks were in prison proportionately than Whites and for longer terms. Contrary to the information coming from the critics, there is a 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions–as one example–which found that Blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment. A 1990 study of 11,000 California cases found that slight racial disparities in sentence length resulted from Blacks’ prior records and other legally relevant variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s seventy-five largest urban areas discovered that Blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than Whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, Blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records. In those studies, no element of racial discrimination appeared to play a role.
Criminologist, Alfred Blumstein, found in 1993 that Blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence at arrest.
4. Drugs: Unfair drug policies are an equally popular explanation for black incarceration rates. Veritable legions of pundits, activists, academics, and self-appointed “Black leaders”, charge that the war on drugs is a war on minorities—a de facto war at best, and an intentional one at worst.
It is true that drugs are significant throughout the judiciary process. Playing a starring role in this issue are federal crack-cocaine penalties which form the source of the greatest amount of argument, misinformation, and complaints by African-Americans in the race and incarceration debate. Crack is a smokeable and highly addictive cocaine concentrate, created by cooking powder cocaine until it hardens into pellets called “rocks.” Crack produces a faster—and more potent—high than powder cocaine, it’s less expensive, and it’s easier to use, since smoking avoids the unpleasantness of needles and is more efficient than snorting. Under the 1986 federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, getting caught with five grams of crack carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence in federal court; to trigger the same five-year minimum, powder-cocaine traffickers would have to get caught with 500 grams. On average, federal crack sentences are three to six times longer than powder sentences for equivalent amounts.