CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PUNISHMENT SYSTEMS
Is the ‘modern prison’ any more humanitarian than punishment systems of the past?
The 20th century British societal and political scenes were concerned with the issues of social exclusion, crime and violent offense, and morality of the youth. Both the Conservative and New Labour government tried to set forth a new political vision and focus that would potently respond to the control and alleviation of social wrongs. However, the realities associated with crime, violence, inter-human offense and victimization in the past and present Britain remain the same. Now, the government is still concerned with the threats to community safety and consistently advocates “more policing, more law, more punishment” as the means to address this reality. Political convergence in the British context is most clearly manifested in the continuous pursuit for effective social policy on crime control (Carabineer, Lee and South, 2000, p. 193).
The prison system is a primary practice of crime control measures and one of the tangible demonstrations of societal democracy (Carabineer, Lee and South, 2000, p. 193). The operations of prison facilities and the management of prisoners in the United Kingdom are dictated by the Prison Act of 1952, the Prison Rules which is legislation from the Act, and by internal orders and circular instructions granted by the Prison Service. The Prison Act and Rules rendered several general provisions on accommodation, exercise, work, education, and leisure facilities but limited enforcement of such provisions made the prisoners enjoy limited benefits as well (Fennel, Harding, Jorge and Swart, 1995, p. 350).
Prisons in Britain came to being in 1601 when the state was firmly responsible for the welfare of the poor. During this period, the government assigned the local parishes to build workhouses where the poor people in the community would be given livelihood. These workhouses soon became a dumping area for people and things that were deemed disadvantageous to the community. In 1850s, the British government incarcerated different kinds of offenders – debtors; juvenile delinquents; misdemeanant minors; and felons. They were detained in filthy, crowded, and dark jails with the absence of segregation between women and men, between adults and children, suspects and convicted, and mentally-challenged or normal. The British penal system was characterized by debtor prisons, the primary form of punishment in the 18th century. Debtor prisons were the venue for detaining tax evaders and those people who run away from their rent obligations. These were small jailhouses or workhouses wherein prisoners had to engage in crafts making and other types of mass production. If the debtor had a family; his or her family was obliged to join the debtor in serving a short incarceration (The Prison System, 2006). As the number of prisoners in British prisons grew out of proportion in the middle years of the eighteenth century, the Parliament government resorted to penal transportation or the deportation of convicts from British prisons in the mainland to penal colonies like Australia. The deportation was marked by a sentence that applied for either life imprisonment or a certain period of detention. The system of penal transportation was a form of punishment for major and simple crimes from the seventeenth century until the nineteenth century. It was a more humanitarian approach to punishment which was an option alongside execution. The penal system in Britain at this period obliged the convicts and offenders to engage in labor either for government-based projects such as road construction, building activities, and mining or for private persons as unpaid labor. Women convicts were required to work as domestic helpers or farm workers (Penal Transportation, 2006). The British prisons underwent reforms in the 1860s and the penal transportation system ended in 1868. The reforms were centered on prison food, prisoner freedom, accommodation and education for the offenders. The cooking and food preparation were improved and prisoners were provided with better kinds of meals. They were given ample time for exercise and to attend to personal habits. The prisoners’ cells were also provided with better beddings; cleaner bathrooms; and more ventilated facility. The prisoners were also given learning opportunities and allowed access to library books and references (The Prison System, 2006).
House (1999) claimed that the eighteenth century British penal system was marked by a boom in capital offenses. The trend was primarily caused by the British Parliament’s continued effort to identify the offenses punishable by death. Pick pocketing in this period was considered a capital offense and decapitations as well as public execution were capital punishments in the 1820s. The British capital code faced numerous criticisms from many social and political groups which advocated for reform and fairer punishments. First, the rationalists argued that death penalty was too rigid and static and its cruelty damaged the people and society. This group believed that the criminal reflects the social ills in the community as well as the opportunity for reform. Any person who commits offenses should not be treated as a permanent societal threat. The rationalists put forward that criminal rehabilitation can be achieved through penal reform. Secondly, the lawyers rendered the most effective advocacy for reform in British laws. They clamored for a more controlled court trial proceeding and regulations relative to evidence. They were also advocates of mercy for the convicted and condemned criminals. On the other hand, the criticisms on the capital code offered by the radicals called for a general reform on the oligarchy system of most British institutions and the government as a whole. This group challenged the brutalities of the legal and penal systems and advocated for proportionate court processes and just punishments in the law. Finally, the evangelicals were instrumental in calling for the religious sides among the British public and the entire Parliament government. This group paved the way for the elimination of pubic execution in the British penal system in 1868. Due to the criticisms and protests targeted at the nature of capital punishments, certain changes took place between 1820 and 1824. Public execution was done less viciously by allowing the convicted criminal to be executed to undergo a final sermon before he or she faced his or her death, and the area of execution was covered with a black curtain to conceal the activity from the public. Decapitation was also put to an end and several jailers were released from their chains and prison cells before any sentence of death penalty. The effort for the abolishment of death penalty was somehow culminated by the last public execution on May 27, 1868 at Negate, London. Two days later, on the 29th of May 1868, the Act to Provide for the Carrying out of Capital Punishment in Prisons was enacted by the British Parliament to oblige the courts and state authorities to render humane treatment to criminals. However, the Act failed to secure the humanization of criminal justice when it only provided a more proper venue for public execution which was inside the prison facilities. Consequently, more criminals were hanged in the years after the passing of the Act – five executed criminals in 1868 and six executions in 1869. Sixty years after the modifications in the death penalty, the British penal system underwent few key reforms. Two different acts were passed between 1907 and 1908 requiring a positive and enabling treatment for juvenile offenders, first-time offenders and those offenders who did not exhibit any vital aggressive and criminal behaviors while in imprisonment in order for them to be given a second chance at a peaceful and productive life. In 1922, the British government resorted to an important penal decision when a distinction was made between infanticide and murder. In 1931, the Sentence of Death Act was passed to prohibit death verdicts on pregnant prisoners. Between 1930 and seven years thereafter, five bills were put forward by the private Members of the Parliament to support the Committee of the House of Commons on Capital Punishment’s advocacy on the eradication of capital punishment. None of these bills had succeeded.
The British penal system used to follow the traditional incapacitation practice similar to other Western countries. Incapacitation prison practice was related to warehousing of prisoners as they were treated as a mere aggregate of persons without human character. In this practice the reasons for the prisoner’s offense were not given attention as this was regarded as a senseless undertaking. The prisoners were also hindered from interacting with fellow detainees and enjoying the sun outside the prison facility. The incapacitation practice was condemned by human rights advocates and failed to meet the purpose of the penal system. As a response, prisons in Britain adopted the “earned privilege” scheme aimed at developing responsibility and enterprising attitudes on the part of the prisoners (Carabineer, Lee and South, 2000, p. 193). This scheme was advanced by Captain Moonachie and comprised of a system that ensured the balance between the length of punishment, the extent of good work contributed by the prisoner, and the proper attitudes that he or she displayed. The length of the punishment was represented by a set of marks based on the seriousness of the offense or the crime. The offenders were encouraged to do productive works while developing and maintaining acceptable behaviors in order to earn the marks and other privileges. When there were slight manifestations of negative behaviors, the offender was confronted with a minor penalty. The earned privilege scheme was aimed at instilling appropriate behaviors in the offenders to prepare them for freedom and reintegration into the society. Furthermore, the British penal system in this period regarded the confinement of prisoners in cells as a minor part of the punishment. The major consideration was making the prisoners experience normal social life through a combination of confinement, productive work, independence and discipline (Knight, 2006). They were provided with a chance to apply for a “ticket of leave” that would entitle them to some conditional freedom. They could continue living a normal life, marry and form a family, and become productive once again. However, there were some prisoners who used the temporary freedom to return to their old ways of aggressive behaviors and anti-social activities that made them suffer exile or hanging as crucial elements of the whole punishment (Penal Transportation, 2006). The earned privilege system consisted of four phases. The first phase was the confinement period where the offenders were detained in prison cells for nine months. The second phase involved transporting the offenders to one of the main public works prisons such as Chatham, Dover, and Plymouth. Here they underwent common work in the day and separate confinement at night. In this period, the offenders were grouped into four teams on the basis of their work and attitudes. All of them strived to merit the marks and achieve higher points. Lack of discipline and violations of the rules downgraded them to lower levels and lower kinds of prison cells. The third phase centered on conditional freedom wherein the prison authorities staged a situation of incarceration and freedom. The offenders were obliged to freely stay at a prison in Lusk for a period of six months doing agricultural and trade works. The prison was a special kind of facility designed without walls, bolts, barriers and bars that experimented on the moral character of the prisoners to exercise discipline as well as gauged their readiness for liberty. The final phase enabled the offenders to understand the essence, benefits, and risks of independence. They were permitted to engage and become familiarized with free work at places called “the shops” which were overseen and directed by the prison authorities (Knight, 2006).
Wilson (1997) reported that the British penal code in 1967 followed a policy on postponing penalties for offenders. The Criminal Justice Act enacted in 1967 entailed suspension of sentences not exceeding six months as long as the offender did not display any violent behaviors. To ensure the suspension of sentences, a Parole Board was formed to handle the specific responsibility of releasing prisoners who had completed one third of their sentences. Consequently, about sixty percent of criminal offenders in British prisons were released after four months detention in 1968. In 1972, a new Criminal Justice Act modified the older version and encouraged judges to ensure the completion of sentences and prison terms of serious offenses. In the same year the British civil service advocated non-custodial treatment of offenders which provided prisoners opportunities for community services instead of spending their time inside the cells. In the mid-seventies, the British penal policy under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ignored incarceration. In 1985, the Home Office that oversees law enforcement advocated caution as the best way to manage offending and obliged the entire local police force to caution juvenile offenders instead of arrest them for any kind of offenses committed. The same year was also the time when the government was preoccupied with trimming down the population in British prisons. Thus, the Home Office lessened the minimum time required for a prisoner to be eligible for a parole as well as implemented automatic granting of parole. Furthermore, the British parliament government adopted Criminal Justice Act that thwarted all courts from passing any custodial sentence on an offender unless the court authority sees and believes that the offense is so serious and grave that such sentencing would be the most rational option available for the offender. This requirement however, did not include violent sexual offenses which required custody of the perpetrator to spare the public from further risks. Michael Howard was appointed as Home Secretary in May 1993 and tried to enhance the British criminal laws and courts procedures by suggesting stricter minimum sentences, decrease in parole, and certain limitations on the capacity of defendants to keep the confidentiality of their previous criminal records from the scrutiny of the jury (p. 3). Carabineer, Lee and South (2000) cited that policing in Britain in the mid 1990’s was exercised through a “zero tolerance practice”. This was demonstrated through rigid management of and consistent operations against under aged drinking, social obstacles brought about by social traders, public urination, vandalism, and transfer or arrest of aggressive beggars, prostitutes, street thieves, abusive drinkers, and other people who were considered social “eyesores”. The policing scheme was founded on the notion that if these people who contributed to social disorder were allowed freedom, more severe crimes would likely thrive (p. 193). According to Wilson (1997) court trails for criminal cases in Britain are not primarily concerned with prosecution or defense of a suspect, rather they focus on serving justice in any case. The jury and barristers are the central figures in all criminal trials. The members of the jury are determined by choosing the first twelve names out of a box while the prosecution and defense parties maybe composed of barristers from the same law firm. British criminal trials do not exercise exclusionary regulation against unlawfully gathered evidences from coming into the courtroom, and from leading questions pertaining to the major issues of the case. There are also few objections throughout the conduct of the trials and members of the police force who testify would stand in the witness area and respond to the barrister’s inquiries with statements like “yes Milord” or “no Milord”. The judge’s responsibility is to summarize the evidences presented by both prosecution and defense and pass the questions to the members of the jury. There are no fixed sentences and the usual punishment is life imprisonment except for murders. Many believe that criminal trials in Britain favor the defense with about half of the criminal cases ending in acquittal (p. 3). David Hill, Gwent CID former head, claims that there is a growing gap between the performance of the British criminal justice system and the expectations of the public and society at large. He says that the police force is not managing crime in socially acceptable ways while the CPS’ manner of bringing cases into the courts do not measure up to the expectations of the public. Furthermore, most cases which have low probability of a guilty plea and extensive evidences favoring the suspect are suspended. The British justice system seems to have a growing hesitance to penalize and educate the people who are causing major societal disorders (Akwagyiram, 2006).
The United Kingdom has one of the highest recorded rates of detention and imprisonment in Western Europe. The country has recorded that an average of 139 in 100,000 people are in prison in 2005 and has 139 prison facilities in the same year (Prison Population, 2006). The Home Office projected that by 2010 the number of prisoners in British prisons would total to 110,000 (Marson, 2000). Her Majesty’s Prison Service is a British Executive Agency operating under the Home Office and is responsible for managing most of the prisons in England and Wales. The Prison Service handles the custody of about 72,000 prisoners in 138 prisons in the British soil and is run by about 44,000 employees. The Prison Service’s purpose is to serve the public and society by overseeing and keeping those people convicted by the courts in a humane manner so that they would develop the essential skills and knowledge in living a law-abiding and productive life (Her Majesty’s, 2006).
Overcrowding has always been a concern for British prisons. More than 9,000 prisoners in British prisons were cramped by pairs in a cell designed for a single accommodation in 1992 while more than 1,000 were detained by three in the same cell. The Woolf inquiry gave out a recommendation patterned after the Dutch requirement of single occupancy which the British prison system adopted (1995, p. 350). The Labor government’s open policies on incarceration that permitted courts to inflict longer sentences on offenders have led to the rapid growth of prisoners over the years. In August of 2005, the British prison population swelled to 77,000 while 74 of the existing 142 prison facilities went beyond the normal level of accommodation and 15 of the 74 were above the “safe overcrowding limit”. Also, about 17,000 prisoners were detained in twos within a cell of single occupancy. The cells designed for one prisoner has a single restroom with limited ventilation that forced prisoners to eat, sleep, urinate, and eliminate human wastes in a cramped space. Furthermore, the Labor government’s law and order policy has allowed imprisonment for people exhibiting antisocial behaviors, young and old alike, which resulted to increasing incidence of juvenile incarceration. Today, hundreds of young people, the youngest aged twelve, are incarcerated in British prisons annually which added to the prison population. Overcrowding in British prisons has posed another threat according to Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owens. This threat is the increasing number of suicides among the jailers which reached a record of 94 adult suicides in prisons within England and Wales in 2004. Furthermore, about 190 accounts of juvenile suicides in custody have been recorded since 1990. Most of this number was young people under twenty one years, while twenty five were under seventeen. Prison authorities blamed the prisons’ lack of adequately trained personnel who can manage a child-centered approach to instilling punishment and discipline as the primary cause of suicides among young jailers. Juliet Lyons, Prison Reform Trust Director stated that the level of overcrowding entails a real and severe threat against the safety of prisoners and the public at large (Marson, 2000).
Today, the penal and prison systems in Great Britain are governed by the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, an Act of Parliament centered on modernizing the criminal justice system in the country as well as in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Act modified the existing laws on police authorities and power, bail, disclosure of pertinent information regarding an offense, distribution of criminal offences, appeals, double jeopardy, proof of unfavorable character, passing of sentences and release. The stop and search powers of the police was intensified to include circumstances where a person is suspected to be in possession of things that can be used for criminal offenses such as spray paints for vandalism. Secondly, the right of the offender to submit an application for bail to the High Court is now prohibited. Thirdly, the police are allowed to render conditional cautions in accordance with a code of practice from the Home Secretary which required the recipient to admit guilt based on certain conditions. If the offender goes against the conditions, he or she can be prosecuted for the offense on which the conditional caution was served. The Act also allows trials for cases of complex fraud to be solely done by a judge without the presence of a jury, as well as increases the conditions for double jeopardy as long as there are new and significant evidences. Probably the most extensive reforms made by the Act are on passing of sentences. The twelfth part of the Act consisted of 159 sections and 24 schedules that changed the entire sentencing procedure in the British penal system. Community sentences in the new Act are now comprised of one community order that requires convicts to undergo unpaid labor, authoritative supervision, exclusion and curfew. Moreover, the Criminal Act of 2003 introduces imprisonment for public protection which is a more contemporary form of life sentence for dangerous prisoners under eighteen years of age and those offenders sentenced with a maximum of ten years imprisonment. Finally, Section twelve of the Act provided the necessary minimum terms for rendering life sentences to murder cases. The court judges consider these terms as the starting terms of which they are allowed to select the most appropriate term that would tend to increase or diminish depending on the gravity of and circumstances surrounding the offense. The judges are required to provide the appropriate justifications on their choice. The starting terms are divided into four classifications – life sentence, minimum of thirty years, fifteen years and twelve. Life sentence covers three circumstances: (1) offenders aged twenty one and above who are convicted for murder of two or more persons which included any preparation or planning for the attack, abduction of the person, and sexual or brutal conduct targeted on the victim; (2) murder, abduction and heinous conduct to a child or minor; and (3) offender who has a previous murder conviction. A minimum of thirty years imprisonment is passed to a convicted criminal who is more than eighteen years old and is responsible for murder of a law enforcement officer while the victim is attending to his or her duty; murder through firearms, deadly weapons or explosives; murder done for compensation or any other gains; murder that meddles with the proper conduct of justice; murder coupled with sexual or brutal behaviors; murder of more than one person; and sexually or racially motivated murders. The minimum of fifteen years sentence is imposed on a convicted offender for a murder not served by the first two categories. A minimum of twelve years imprisonment covers the murder committed by an offender who is under eighteen years of age (Criminal Justice Act of 2003, 2006).
The British penal and prison systems of the past and today do not have any remarkable distinction relative to the humane treatment of criminals and offenders. The old penal system was more disorganized while the contemporary penal and prison systems are properly governed by specific laws. However, the British prisons of the past and the modern world are continuously faced by overcrowding which denies prisoners the chance to experience normal living despite incarceration. The British government has to ensure that the prisoners are detained in appropriate manners to address the risks of overcrowding, feelings of despair, and self-inflicted deaths.
Critically discuss the salience of racism and inter-ethnic conflict in relation to crime and justice
Racism, inter-ethnic conflicts, and racial discrimination are three perpetual concerns that have plagued world history and are continuously enduring in the modern society. They are crucial deviations from the universality of human rights that inherently entitle all people, without distinction and bias, to take pleasure in living a normal and safe life. Discrimination relative to color, culture, race and ethnic group is a major assault on the very fabric of universal human rights as people are forbidden to enjoy their full human rights that they are entitled at birth. International human rights law firmly underscores the right of the entire global citizenry to be free of racial discrimination and racist assaults. The United Nations Charter stresses one major purpose which is the achievement of international cooperation in advocating and instigating recognition and respect for human rights and natural human freedom without bias to color, race, sex, culture, religion or language. The government or the state is the key structure that should promote and preserve the human rights of the citizens and also counter any threats to total enjoyment of these human rights. The International Court of Justice consistently obliges all States in the world to uphold the universality of human rights, adopt statewide measures that would prohibit or totally abolish traces of racial discrimination, and provide equal protection against violence, intimidation and threats to normal living for all citizens despite race, color, culture, language, sex or religion. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1965 enumerated the substantive rights of all people as well as the procedures and mechanisms for the eradication of all forms of racial discrimination. The Convention was also instrumental in advocating absolute racial equality; providing the various ethnic, racial, and national groups the motivation and opportunities to enjoy their innate human rights in the civil, economic, political, spiritual, political and cultural spheres of society; and impelling governments to offer complete protection for all people from both private and state-inflicted racial discrimination (Amnesty International, 2001, pp. 1-5). In Britain, the Race Relations Act of 1976 stipulated that mistreating someone because of his or her skin color, race, nationality or ethnic origin was against the law. The law underwent an amendment in 2000 to include two new provisions: law enforcement coverage so that people who suffer racial discrimination from the actual police officers and law enforcers can bring the matter to the appropriate authority or the court; and police officers should recognize the ethnic diversity of citizens in all their functions. The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 further enumerated race-related criminal offenses which included racially-motivated damage, assault, or attacks to individuals, groups or the public order (Attacked, 2003). All the efforts of international laws as well as individual governments against racism and racial discrimination are founded on the notion that justice would not prevail when there is racism (Amnesty International, 2001, p. 5). However, despite of the continuous effort to combat the terrors of racism, racial discrimination and inter-ethnic conflicts still pervade within human society. Racism is used by major racial groups to emphasize their supremacy while the victims of racism, the marginalized and powerless, socially exhibit racist behaviors as a means to communicate their feelings of isolation and anguish towards the domineering groups. Racism in the social and political relations of a nation is greatly triggered by inter-ethnic conflicts. Inter-ethnic conflicts are motivated by ethnic biases that people of the various races use to participate in cooperation and competition. The different racial groups within the national boundary typically form a community with interests and aspirations distinct from those of other racial groups. The members of the racial group are fundamentally obliged to understand and appreciate these interests and work together to fulfill them. Cooperation becomes a norm that dictates all members of the racial group to contribute to the continuous and stable existence of their group. The differences in interests and aspirations make way for clashes and development of “enemy” mentality. “Enemy mentality” and racism that results from it become the basis of many people and governments in inhuman undertakings to acquire power, in stimulating hatred among their own racial group towards the other groups, dehumanizing the other races, and justifying human rights violations and inter-human abuses (Amnesty International, 2001, p. 37). Moore (nod.) said that inter-ethnic conflicts revolve around economic motivations and efforts to solidify racial identity. Racial groups compete for social and economic resources. They continuously struggle to achieve a desirable level of economic stability that would ensure sustainability for all members of the group as well as a social position that would differentiate them from the others. The fight for identity happens when members of the different racial groups see that their economic and social positions are threatened by other groups. A fear of losing the group’s distinct characteristics, systems of living, and social structures develops and further results to harsh defensive actions (Moore, nod.). Today, genocide and ethnic cleansing are the worst forms of the social evils of racism and ethnic conflicts (Amnesty International, 2001, pp. 1-2). In Britain, the racial mix of the population resulted to many accounts of racial clashes and racial segregation. The British society puts its population in hierarchy – the Whites are on top of everyone, Asians are in the middle level and the Black population is in the bottom part of the hierarchy (John, 2006). Cities like Oldham, Bradford and Burley, which all have populations that comprise large percentages of ethnic minorities, have suffered numerous race riots in 2001. Vorster (2002) claimed that racism and inter-ethnic conflicts are consequences of globalization. Globalization encourages the unimpeded flow of products, services, technology and employment across national borders. In turn, global employment calls for migration between nations that leads to the diversity of modern societies. Today, most nations in the world are characterized by a population of mixed ethnicities and racial backgrounds. There would always be a dominant group and the minority. Conflicts arise when people from different ethnic backgrounds tackle the issues of preservation of their ancestral culture while assimilating themselves into the bigger community of which they are a part. Law and order in every country is undeniably influenced by prejudices against other racial groups thriving in the country. This usually happens in one-dimensional justice system wherein the state oversees and directs all aspects of society. Thus, lawmakers and authorities are given greater leeway in exercising power to inflict abuse and discrimination to those people that are deemed less powerful. One of the extreme demonstrations of racism and inter-ethnic conflicts is structural violence through genocide and racist laws. During the 19th century, colonialism led by American and European nations fueled various forms of state-organized genocide that annihilated or diminished the population of several countries into mere minorities. Today, genocide takes the form of mass deportation, terror and social exclusion targeted at the minorities (p. 296).
Racism virtually penetrates every aspect of society – in the academe, politics, employment, and even the justice system. Racism in the last aspect is a desperate scenario since a state justice system is fundamentally responsible for pursuing justice and equality for all. Governments are obliged by the international human rights law to be the primary movers in eradicating all traces of racism in every nation. Unfortunately, the justice system of most countries reflects the biases and prejudices of the society where it operates. Racism in the administration of justice in most of the nations in the world allows immunity for human rights violators and human offenders. The government shuts its eyes and turns its back to violations and abuses committed by its people (Amnesty International, 2001, p. 1). According to Jones-Brown and Markowitz (2000) biases relative to skin color and race influence the criminal justice system’s processes of conviction, sentencing, and detention of ethnic minority offenders. The darkness of skin color and other pre-conceived ideas about a certain race are negatively attributed to untrustworthiness, dangerousness, violence, anti-social behaviors, and criminality. Thus, people of color are seen as more dangerous and are naturally more prone to developing anti-social behavior. They are seen as more violent and crime-inclined (p. 40). High smith (2006) claimed that the criminal law and criminal justice system becomes a primary avenue for the state and the ruling social group to safeguard the capitalist system, their interests, and maintain domestic order. The underclass and the racial groups that are not regarded as instrumental to the dominance of the ruling group and capitalism must maintain an oppressed and subdued status to give liberty to the actions and success of the dominant economic and social classes. As long as the dominant groups pursue power and supremacy, these marginalized groups are to remain as objects of crime control.
Racial discrimination in the justice system occurs in policing, criminal proceedings, court trials, sentencing of convicted suspects, and imprisonment. People from racial and ethnic groups are often confronted with harassment, discretionary incarceration, and maltreatment from the police, other law enforcement authorities, courts, judges and prosecutors. Racism in policing takes place when police officers arbitrarily regard racial and ethnic minorities as objects of crime and arrest. These people are usually faced by unfair prosecutions and trials; harsher sentences; belittling treatment; physical assaults; sexual abuse; and minimal legal support. Police racial discrimination can also take the form of excessive use of power by limiting freedom of residency and right to learning and education among the racial minorities. Furthermore, most law enforcement officers with racist attitudes offer little interest or intervention in times of inter-ethnic assaults. Investigations are done haphazardly or unenthusiastically and some police officers even decline to register complaints of criminal offenses made by ethnic and racial minorities. Corollary to this, if the attackers are from racial and ethnic groups, the police offer graver punishment and serious intimidation. Racism in criminal prosecutions and trials happen when the courts refuse to offer the same level of protection given to citizens of the majority group to members of racial and ethnic groups in court proceedings or when people of ethnic descent try to defend their sides on the case. Marble (2000) said that several researchers posited that stereotypical views of African Americans as slaves, violent, and hostile people immensely impact judgments relative to crime and violence. Generally, most court authorities especially those from the White population tend to render graver judgments of guilt and longer imprisonment to African Americans and Latino suspects than their White counterparts for the same level of offence or crime committed. Racially-motivated prejudices are also firmly evident in cases wherein the offenders of White victims are more likely to be sentenced with death penalty than those who murder Blacks, Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is either a product of hateful bias or a result of authoritative decisions based on evidence tinted with racial prejudices. Either way, it runs contrary to the fundamental principles of any criminal justice system which are justice and equal protection of the law (Human Rights Watch, 2006). Racial discrimination in the administration of justice occurs in every nation. In some parts of Latin America, the state displays inaction relative to human abuses of indigenous people that the citizens are forced to think that the government is conspired with the abuses. The Guatemalan security officers are implicated in various cases of human rights violations between 1966 and 1996. In 1994, Rwanda suffered the most heinous form of racism when millions of men, women and children were massacred by the people handling power due to ethnic hatred (Amnesty International, 2001, p. 1). Also, the American society is now pervaded by three major ethnic groups – African-Americans, Latin-Americans, and the Native Americans. First, many African Americans are improperly incarcerated by racist drug laws, provided with limited access to economic, social and educational benefits, and deprived of their human worth and civil rights by White dominance. The American justice system continuously arranges situations that make African American men more prone to imprisonment and the lynching system associated with the history of slavery in early America takes the contemporary form of racist death penalty (Prison Activist Resource Center, 1999). Generally, the imprisonment of African Americans is a traditional manifestation of American bias against race which has its roots in the slavery system as well. The Black population has been perpetually regarded as a cheap source of labor and a handy target of the American nation’s contempt, depression and guilt. Consequently, the American state decreases or totally restrains African American access to employment opportunities, education, and business investments. Corollary to this, most African Americans suffer unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, poverty, gambling and other addictions, and health and psychological problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse, and smoking. These factors put immense stress on their daily living and pave the way for development of anger towards the inhumane society, despair for their situation, and find their expressions in crime or violence, and sometimes suicide (Shelton, 2005). Secondly, South Americans or people with Latin descent are one of the most rapidly proliferating minorities in the United States. They dominate the southwestern and western parts of the country but still they are perpetually regarded as foreigners and outsiders by many of their American peers. Latinos are threatened by racist politics and policy-making bodies of the American government. They are exposed to outright maltreatment from the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service while Latin communities throughout the United States are stricken by poverty, unemployment, ill-health and lack of access to education. Like their African Americans counterparts, most Latin Americans are subjected to imprisonment due to racist drug laws. Finally, Native Americans are one of the major tribal groups in America. They have been in the United States since the early years and have acquired their native territory within the country. However, the American populace does not treat them as American people. For one, the Washington State Republican party created a resolution for the disestablishment of tribal governments and the unlawful strip-mining of the Native American’s ancestral lands. Also, this ethnic group may suffer greater subjection to correctional supervision and control than the White people (Prison Activist Resource Center, 1999). Furthermore, most European states do not provide serious consideration and attention towards racist crimes by gangs or individual citizens. European law somehow denies security for Blacks and other ethnic populations that lead to either distrust on the police and the judiciary or increased vulnerability for further violations among these people. In England and Wales, particularly, young second-generation Afro-Caribbean men are seven times more likely to be imprisoned than are their white or Asian counterparts, while West Indian women are ten times more likely to be incarcerated in Britain than are white females (Carabineer, Lee and South, 2000, p. 193). Racism issues were at the forefront of British politics through the race-induced death of Stephen Lawrence, an eighteen-year old A-level Black student murdered by six white youth in London in 1993 and the preparation of the Macpherson Report in 1999 that rendered an inquiry into the investigation by the Metropolitan police. Controversies surrounding the Lawrence murder included the facts that the young man did not receive any immediate medical assistance from the police who responded to the scene because he was Black, and nobody was ever convicted for the murder (Mahamdallie, 2002). The Macpherson Report was a remarkable moment in race relations in the British context. It made an evaluation of the existence of institutional racism in the Metropolitan police and the entire British policing as well as provided around seventy proposals on the proper police behavior towards racism and highlighted the importance of having more Blacks and Asians in the British police force. The British government promised to have around 8,000 police officers from minority ethnic groups in the police by 2009. However, in 2001, a survey disclosed that there were only 155 ethnic minority officers. Also, in February 2000, four Black officers resigned from the Metropolitan police claiming that they were treated as subordinates, voiceless and inferior. The report also stressed some necessary modifications in the British laws that would enhance the Race Relations Act. One of which was making the private use of racist language a criminal violation and encouraging police and academic institutions to abolish indiscriminate practices (Macpherson Report, 2001). In the recent years, racism in Britain still persists to include Asians, other immigrants, and Muslims triggered by the global war against terrorism. Racism towards immigrants and Muslim people are combined at the British institutional level. David Plunkett, Home Secretary of the New Labour, has been straightforward in relating race to immigration and resorted to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill in 2001. The Bill specified control measures that blocked Blacks and immigrants from poor nations from entering the British soil. Plunkett expressed that the Bill states rules and norms that obliged citizens coming into Britain to accept those norms and become “more English” if they were to live in the country. The Bill encompassed Asian immigrants and Asians who have been in the country for years. The Muslims, on the other hand, who were mostly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, were forced to isolate themselves outside the northern part of the country, separate from the Whites. They built their own communities which was a form of “residential segregation” (Mahamdallie, 2002).
Rampart (2002) argued that racism and crime have evident association. Generally, criminologists and researchers have found out that factors such as racial bias, underclass status, and community characteristics among racial and ethnic minorities help form the opportunities, attitudes, and behaviors towards race-related violence and crime (Jones-Brown and Markowitz, 2000, p. 31). Some people are convenient subjects of violence and attacks because of their racial and ethnic make up or their skin color. People are assaulted and hurt by other people because they do not like the “kind of people” that they are (Rampart, 2002). Jones-Brown and Markowitz (2000) cited that the Whites stereotypically view the “traditional rapist” as a “Black man”, the “opium user and drug user” as the “yellow man”, the “red man” is the drunken Indian or alcoholics, and they generally regard colored people as primary players in criminality and violence (p. 32).
Crimes that are racially-motivated are forms of hate crimes. The police define hate crimes as crimes committed by offenders who have certain personal hatred or bias to a group of people. Hate crimes with racist factors take place when a perpetrator inflicts harm on somebody because they are members of a different race or ethnic descent. Thus, hate crimes can happen to both people of the majority race and the racial groups. Harm can be done through physical attack, grave intimidation, murder or robbery (Thames Valley Police, 2004). Easton (2006) stated that the traditional definition of racism underscored the prejudices against racial minorities and excluded the white people. Today, however, inter-ethnic conflicts and racism can be targeted at both whites and ethic minorities. In 2004, a British survey revealed that 87,000 Blacks and ethnic people, and 92,000 whites reported to be victims of race-related conflicts or crimes. Two specific examples were the murder of Kris Donald in Glasgow in 2004 and Ross Parker in 2001 at Peterborough. The two teenagers were said to be murdered by Asians. Marble (2000), on the other hand, said that despite the various arguments, the minority are still more likely to be victims of violent racist attacks and violence. The minority have different skin color and race which become the bases of negative characteristics. First, the White population’s treatment of colored people as violent, aggressive and criminals influence the way people of color conceptualize their self-identity and self-worth. They may see themselves as inferior and not worthy of respect from the Whites. They may also tend to develop hatred towards the Whites since they are negatively labeled without rational basis. They would exhibit deviant behaviors due to the difference and alienation focused on them. Racial and skin color biases possibly motivate racial and ethnic people to internalize negativities and antagonism and they might find themselves involved in drugs, alcoholism, violence and crime as escape routes. Second, racial biases and antagonism subjected towards racial and ethnic groups by the Whites result to structural restrictions. People of color are hindered from pursuing their interests, availing of social benefits and services, and realizing their full potentials as human beings. These restrictions may lead to frustration and anguish that find their expression in deviant and aggressive behaviors. Evidences of these restrictions come in the forms of unemployment, lower occupational status, low income, health problems, poverty and illiteracy (Jones-Brown and Markowitz, 2000, pp. 40-41). The ideas developed by Jones-Brown and Markowitz are supported by the Centre for Crime and Justice in Britain when officials of this institution opined that people of African descent and other ethnicities are predominantly found in impoverished areas of the British society, and most wealthy societies for that matter. These people have limited access to social services and modern facilities. They are the people who are perpetually confronted with issues of deprivation, despair and isolation that increase their tendency to resort to violent means to escape. Thus, the Blacks and ethnic minorities are more likely to be victims and perpetrators of crimes and violence (Solomon, 2006). Corollary to the despair that most ethnic minorities suffer, they are more prone to drug abuse and other grave vices. A research by the United States Commission on Civil Rights revealed that 14 percent of African Americans are drug users, while they constitute 35 percent of arrests for drug-related offenses, 55 percent of convictions for drug offenses, and 75 percent of prison admission for drug offenses. Statistics on correctional supervision and parole and probation in the United States show that one in fifteen of young white males are under probation while it is one in ten for young Latino men, and one in three for young Black males (Marble, 2000).
Hate crimes, racism and ethnic conflicts are serious concerns that alter the stability of communities. They develop fear, anger and despair among the victims (Thames Valley Police, 2004). They also shape a social climate that makes the public feel that the state is not capable of protecting them from the terrors and evils of racist motivations (Amnesty International, 2001, p. 36). The entire humanity has inherent rights to feel secured, away from danger or intimidation, and live a normal life. Hate crimes and racism rob this right away from these people just because they have different skin color from the majority (Thames Valley Police, 2004). Racism, inter-ethnic conflict, crime, and racially-biased incarcerations are realities that would collectively perpetuate in society as long as people are inflicted with racist attitudes that make the oppressed social and racial groups continuously live depressed and alienated lives, suffer inhumane conditions, and lead them to use crime and violence as means of expressing their woes (Shelton, 2005).
Are the seemingly inexorably, rising numbers of violent offenders inevitable. All three essays are for 4000 words each and are of masters level in forensic psychology so kindly make note of that.
Criminals and violence would always be present in society. The past have witnessed violent offenders, the present is continuously threatened by them and the future would not be spared. Criminality is an undeniable factor of human life and world civilization. People have grown accustomed to crime as a in that to which they are accustomed, looking on crime as part of life’s hard burden, ordained and fixed in the Nature of Things. They have indeed, from very force of habit, come to prepare for “ordinary” criminality, just as they look for crops in their due season. The perpetual presence of the “common” criminal is accepted much as the rats are amongst all ship’s cargoes, as being a great, but perfectly unavoidable nuisance permitted by Providence. Both the robbers and the rats are always being pursued and chivied about in a desultory sort of way, but neither is traced home to their cause and origin, and so are never seriously met and stayed.
When we next observe a dog spin round and round, frantic efforts after its own tail, we shall be witnessing conduct not much more irrational than police methods of dealing with men. Now in the Future there will be no ordinary crime. This I predict with quiet confidence. Calamities indeed will ever come; the great world-doom of death, the deep soul-pain of parting; a certain amount of madness and disease, and perhaps smoldering Berserk outbreaks of individual jealousy and hatred. These will be with us to the end of time, but prison populations will have passed away! (M.A. Ives, 1970, p. 321).
Internet. (2002, September 23). Hughes: jail only violent offenders. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved December 28, 2006, from
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems2002/story/0,,797392,00.html.
Jail sentences should be reserved for violent criminals and those convicted of a handful of other serious offences, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Simon Hughes, told conference delegates today.
In a rethink of Lib Dem policy on law and order designed to shake off the party’s reputation for being soft on crime, Mr. Hughes said courts should work on the presumption that all serious violent offences should mean jail.
But this should be matched by a presumption that non-violent offenders will not receive custodial sentences – a change which would see Britain’s soaring prison population tumble.
Mr. Hughes told the Lib Deems’ annual conference in Brighton: “Cheju fraud may be wrong, but it is not in the same league as stabbing somebody.
“It is time for Liberal Democrats to prioritize policies and campaign against violence.”
Jail terms should be imposed only for a few non-violent offences, such as peddling hard drugs or child pornography, causing death by reckless driving and intimidating witnesses in a trial, he said.
Mr. Hughes, who acknowledged that his party had been perceived as soft on crime, said that the Lib Deems should be “compassionate but also strong”.
He branded Labor’s successive home secretaries, Jack Straw and David Blanket, as “the authoritarian tendency”, accusing them of putting fundamental civil liberties under threat, on the back of public concerns over rising crime and terrorism.
Under Labour, law and order policies were “drawn up in six hours, debated for six days and lasting for six months”, he said.
Mr. Hughes voiced opposition to government plans to remove jury trial for fraud defendants and to allow juries to hear details of previous convictions before arriving at their verdict.
“Defence of civil liberty and justice for all our community are not mutually exclusive but inseparable,” he told delegates.
“But we must be blunt with our warning. Those who perpetrate violence against fellow human beings are undermining our development as a civilized society.
“We will always work for rehabilitation and reform. But we will never let either the thuggish individual or the tyrannical government abuse their power at the expense of others.”
Mr. Hughes said his decision to push for a tougher approach to violent crime was prompted by personal experience in his inner-city constituency of North Southward and Bremond’s, in south London, where voters felt society had failed to respond to rising violence.
Mr. Hughes also set out proposals for named police officers to be appointed for every community, on a minimum three-year contract, and for greater effort to be put into supervising former prisoners after their release from jail.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment