Unit 1 – Cultural Perspective on Crime
I. Introduction
The issue of criminal behavior and race has been discussed incessantly in the literature. The diversity of human existence has triggered conflict on different classes and different ethnic groups. Moreover, there is also the emerging notion that crime relating to race has been considerably indicative of the overrepresentation of minorities in a particular society. In this category, the operational use of the term “representation” will be based on the presence of minorities in reported crimes. Thus, the use of the term “overrepresentation” indicates the ceaseless presence of minorities on criminal cases. The position of this paper provides that minorities are forced by the factors in their environment to engage in acts that considered criminal by the prevailing society.
II. Overrepresentation of Minorities
The reason why minorities often find themselves in situations considered criminal by modern society implies a considerable problem in the context of “legitimacy and compliance.” (1996) There is a reason why laws and regulations exist; this is to ensure that order is preserved in societies. There is also a reason why people tend to follow these laws; it is because they think that is “proper to do so.” (1996) On one side, the compliance to these laws basically serves as a “deterrent” such that people does what the law indicates so as to avert any form of punishment. ( 2005) However, there are also those who claim that the individual values and collective principles of the people tend to dictate their predilection to compliance of the law. (1996,) This shows two major reasons why people tend to react negatively on the commission of acts categorized as criminal by law. In this line of reasoning, provided that minorities are similarly subjected to the same kind of laws and the same kind of legal system, it is rather a conundrum that they have to constantly be a part of criminal actions.
III. Representation of Minorities
The theoretical claims presented above indicate the general counter-argument on the case of minorities in criminal cases. The problem in the said argument, regardless of the considerable evidence from the existing literature, is that it fails to recognize the external factors that tend to have a major effect on the possible criminal offenses acquired by these individuals. The following discussions will provide a description on the reasons why minorities tend to be seen as overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
A. Exposure to Prejudice
Discrimination and prejudice studies have constantly been conducted and published for decades and they have indicated that such occurrences are a reality among minorities. Racial discrimination has been a staple of minority groups throughout the ages. In the work setting, racial discrimination topics have been a staple in organizational studies. (1995) Even in instances where minorities are to engage in recreational activities, they are hounded by certain prejudice by the majority. (1998) Even at the time when these people intend to have fun, they are pursued by such unfair treatment. Though this does not justify that minorities engage in criminal activities, one must recognize that even if they start complying with rules, the existing society wields everything that is not fair on their midst.
B. Unstable Social Situation
Being a part of a minority group implies a degree of inequity right away. Meaning there is an inherent disadvantage that one acquires to the moment he/she considers himself/herself a part of the minority. This has been the problem in any state with a highly diverse population. Though it is primarily seen in the United States, this situation is not restricted to its boundaries. This takes place in Europe and Asia. ( 1995; 2004) Thus, this establishes it as a universal phenomenon.
In the context of the United States, the minority groups in business are seen to have to deal with permanent “economic barriers.” (Silverman, 1998, 571) This is seen in the study of (1998) where African-American business people in Chicago eventually succumbed to the corporations owned and controlled by the dominant white business people in the state. Seen in this situation, even as minority groups try so hard as to work with the system, they end up losing and being eaten up by the dominant group.
IV. Conclusion
The racial situation in society presents an unending and universal predicament that screams for its resolution. This issue transcends mere calls for legal change. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, he did not be set his deeds to defy the legality and authenticity of the US or the rule of law but merely the moral appropriateness of the law under consideration. (1963) Representation of minority in the criminal justice system is apparent not because they want to actually engage in criminal acts, it is because the societies they dwell in subconsciously place them in that situation. Authorities call for compliance to the imposed law but there seems to be an existing paradox in this scenario. The thing about legitimacy and compliance is that the most natural thing an individual is to regard whether a certain aspect demanding a legitimate compliance is whether they deem it just. It is for this matter that this paper calls for not as much as changes in the existing laws to favor the minority but for fairness in the implementation of laws. In this way every single individual in society does his fair share in complying and establishing the legitimacy of the rule of law.
Discussion Board
The issue of gang membership rises above the mere issue of race, though it highly likely those young individuals would tend to get together with people they identify with. The problem rest on the fact that, regardless of race, gang membership among the youth is said to be highly dependent on the relative ability or tendency of the individual to antisocial behavior. (1999) This indicates that antisocial behavior is the foundation of gang membership, not as much of racial or ethnical background. However, this does not discount that there is a great possibility that race would determine the general membership of a youth gang. To illustrate, early gangs in Los Angeles displays an illustration of racial gangs in the 1940s. Particularly, the gang comprised of zoot-wearing Mexican-Americans who turned out to contribute highly in the occurrence of the “zoot-suit riot.” (2002) In this line of reasoning, it shows that antisocial behavior and race could thus present a perfect formula in the creation of youth gangs.
Given in the context of youth gangs, one may realize that the theory of crime applicable in this subject would be differential association. In this context, the individual learns delinquency through his/her peers. (2000) This is comparable to what takes place in gangs and other delinquent groups. Deviance and deviant behavior is learned by a person through individuals he/she identifies with, particularly those he/she considers as close friends.
In general, it would be ideal for law enforcement organizations to implement a racially neutral set of strategy. Specifically, the laws pinpointing criminal activities should be equally implemented in all delinquent individuals and those engaging in deviant behavior. Policies should focus more on providing programs that will deter these activities and even serve as a means for these delinquents and deviants to comply with the existing laws. In the operational level, law enforcement organizations should try to establish first that the groups of young individuals present in their area are actually gangs engaging in illegal behavior and consequently create a profile of its members. After these they should appoint individuals who could relate closely to racially-oriented gangs. This indicates a practical approach in dealing with these delinquent youth gangs. In this manner, the policies will not present any discriminatory implications.
Unit 2 – Police & Diversity (New York)
The figures that have been uncovered through research considerably vary but essentially point out specific indications regarding the connection between race and crime. One of the sources that indicated distinctions involving crimes committed by races is the website of the (2007). The latest figure it cold provides is the statistical data from 2004. Specifically, the data presented the number of arrests made with particular mention on the type of offense, age group, and race. In the context of race (divided into Whites, Blacks, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander), it indicated that as a whole, Caucasians still holds the most number of arrests overall, both in the age bracket of below and over 18 years old. This is followed by a far second place by the African-Americans. Moreover, there is some level of confusion, borderline misleading, when this is compared to the Uniform Crime Reports (2007) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The problem is that the UCR presented their data regarding the race of the criminal offenses into whites and non-whites. This means that they bunched together all the arrests made against all the minorities in the United States which obviously will incur a far greater rate when compared to the white population. Moreover, the latest data that the UCR presented was about the figures in 2001.
This shows that non-minorities have been arrested more as compared to the arrest made to individual minority groups. At the same time, it also shows that the African-American population has been on the top of the list among the minority groups who have been arrested of crime. It’s really unsafe to clearly claim that discrimination got a hand on these arrests, but to some extent it could be probable. In the case of my state, New York does not have a detailed division as to the description of the type of minority or race that took a hand in the criminal offense. Being a considerably diverse metropolis, it is no surprise that the city officials would have difficulty of presenting the actual racial profile of a particular criminal perpetrator. Nevertheless, there is an apparent issue as to the presence of hate crimes against minorities. According to the UCR (FBI, 2007) there were two hundred forty-nine reported cases of crime against minority groups in the state.
Regardless on how badly people want to believe that discrimination does not have any influence in these arrests, it would still not make it a fact. The discretion of the arresting officer still indicates doubt as to whether such an occurrence does or does not take place. Specifically, studies have noted that racial profiling has become one of the most effective means of policing strategy employed in law enforcement. (Bass, 2001, p. 156) Though there have been noted instances where Asians and Latinos are held accountable for certain crimes, it is the African-American community that has a considerably long history with the issue. ()
Another study has indicated that the drug war conducted in the nation has similarly taken a go with the use of racial profiling methods. (2003) The study emphasized the fact that criminal activities are not resolved by mere arresting individuals based on the racial profile that law enforcement agencies hold on their data banks. Getting the actual perpetrator should entail considerable effort exclusive of any consideration on race or class. (2003) stated in his study that such use of racial profiling methods does undermine certain rights of the individual. He noted that the Fourth Amendment Rights and Equal Protection standards are compromised. These laws are held highly by the legal system and are diluted by such actions (racial profiling) by the very people that should enforce it.
Thus, as seen in (2003) article, this bias is seen in mundane offences like “pedestrian and automobile stops” to grave actions like “capital punishment.” () His article indicated that the overrepresentation of the minorities in th4e criminal process doesn’t only show the predilection towards pointing criminal blame on them, this also shows how badly they are treated by authorities. Official misdemeanors seen in the form of the employment of excessive force and harassment are just among the actions that officials undertake in times of arrests.
As seen in the reports in the UCR, it is seen that non-whites are arrested more than those who belong in the white populace. Is this indicative of something discriminatory? As this discussion has indicated earlier, it is hard to conclude such from the presented data alone. However, as seen in the news and other “reality” reports on the context of crime, one stops and realizes that there is a discriminatory hand in these arrests. The employment of racial profiling alone is indicative of discrimination. Even before the perpetrator is named, its race has already been established. Though this is a clear and present violation of the basic liberties of an individual, one could not help but accept it as a reality. It shows that society has preconceived expectations on how a certain individual would act based on his/her racial or ethnic background. Stereotypes are often thrown to any person based primarily on the color of their skin. Though they are enjoying the same liberties as that of the majority, their freedom is limited nonetheless. This is a poor way to repay those who have actually fought for these liberties and those who are still fighting so that people still have a change to live in freedom. Without sounding rather overly cynical, racial discrimination and stereotyping exists. All in all, the discussion presented the existence of a social problem. Despite all the changes in policies throughout the ages, differences in people will always engender vile acts of discrimination, prejudice, and inequality.
Discussion Board
Basically, affirmative action is a policy presented in organizations pertaining to the equal opportunity of the minorities with the dominant classes in society. The issue of affirmative action is problematic considering that it is indistinguishable with mere preferential treatment of a certain group of individuals. To this end, affirmative action is merely a glorified version of preferential treatment. ( 1998) Preferential treatment is essentially wrong so as other concerns cannot cause it to be morally reasonable. Preferential treatment is morally erroneous unerringly akin to discrimination. Consequently, to contend that preferential treatment can be morally reasonable if it has respectable social outcomes is in the vein of saying that discrimination can be morally acceptable if it has good social end results. This is obviously wrong; discrimination would still be erroneous even supposing it essentially encouraged usefulness or some other social nobility. Likewise, preferential treatment is morally wrong in spite of its end results. Preferential treatment, consistent with this less categorical account is similar to discrimination and thus erroneous in no less than a single context. That is to say, both preferential treatment and discrimination depend on immaterial characteristics, which is morally offensive. This does not denote, nevertheless, that preferential treatment essentially is wrong all things measured, as other concerns may make a preferential treatment policy (such as affirmative action) acceptable in any case.
This could be viewed philosophically through Kant’s and Mill’s perspective, Kantianism states that an action is considered moral if it is carried out for the benefit of duty and if its principle can be considered as a common norm. (2000) Kantianism can consequently be perceived as a rational and commonsensical premise in which judgments can be completed. Utilitarianism (), alternatively, would merely perceive the action as ethically allowable if the cost of that deed generates maximum utility and happiness for all concerned. ( 2001) Utilitarianism has no general collection of rules on to which morality is anchored. Thus, the issue of affirmative action in policing would fall on these arguments. Would hiring an individual for a position of power (given in the police force) be for the good of the many or should it be a question on who actually best fit the post?
At any rate, whether employment in a law enforcement organization or a commercial establishment, programs like affirmative go against the rights of an individual. Either the fundamental right of the personnel who is most eligible for a specific job to occupy that position, or the right of the managers and company owners to employ whoever they believe is most capable for the job they have offered. It would be complicated to defend the standpoint that the personnel have a right to that work for which they happen to be even preferably fitting. Even though it could be reasonably contended that employees or employers have certain rights which are endangered by affirmative action, rights are by no means definite. Concern of the utmost good, or reverence for more basic rights or responsibilities, customarily permits acceptable limitations on the rights of people in society. Affirmative action limits the police force’s right to hire individuals at will. It is a position of public service, thus merit should be taken into consideration, not values of affirmative action. Nonetheless, this limitation is necessary for the reason that it points to the greater good, a society liberated from unreasonable discrimination.
Unit 3 – Justice in the Courtroom
VI. Introduction
The courts are supposed to be the bastion of justice and all of what is fair in society. However, there are still instances where minorities seem to have to deal with certain social inequalities even inside the courtroom. This discussion will focus on the role of minority lawyers in the advancement of minority rights in the courtrooms. Similarly, the discussion will also look into the peremptory challenges that these prosecutors have during the jury selection in criminal cases. Particularly the discussion will be centering on the elimination and retaining of these privileges.
VII. Minority Lawyers
The question relating to this part includes also the emergence of minority judges. However, the discussion will focus on the availability of the counsels which are a part of the minority. It is the contention of this paper that judges are required to be unbiased and objective, regardless of their ethnic or racial similarity with any of the parties involved in a case, thus, the protection of rights and liberties of the minority groups rest largely on their counsel. The legal profession has considerably shifted its view from the traditional outlook of neutral advocacy of the client. (2005) More specifically, they are constantly being hurtled to what is currently called “cause-motivated” approach of lawyering. () In some areas, this mode of defending a client is simply called cause lawyering.
The bulk of literature pertaining to the appropriate way of practicing law, particularly in the ethical perspective, points to neutrality in general. However, activism appears to be climbing its way into being the norm. Lawyers tend to become agents of social change in implementing this kind of legal method. In the context of minority lawyers, a large part of cause lawyers tend to find deep identification with their cases when it involves racial issue. (2005) As indicated in the article of (2005), the majority of African-American lawyers tend to adhere to criminal defense. In addition to that, it is said that they likely take on primarily African-American client as well, and most of the time they solely take African-American clients.
The legal profession has a considerable number of counsels coming from the African-American sector. Regrettably, other minority groups don’t have this convenience. To illustrate, the Latino community has been indicated to have a small number of legal practitioners in the US. (2003) Studies have indicated that the shortage of such lawyers is seen as a result of the poor showing among Latino student in entering law schools.
VIII. Peremptory Challenges
Peremptory challenges are given to litigants to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right is protected. However, there are issues relating to this exercise because it apparently undermines the race of the jury. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the courts indicated that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to choose juries based on their race. There proposition regarding the elimination of this exercise. Some of these arguments indicate that the elimination would engender efficiency. In the case of JEB v Alabama ex rel TB (1994), a hearing even took place just to determine whether the peremptory challenge was discriminatory in nature or not. The American public who are eligible for jury duty often perceive this as a nuisance, which is true in some sense. However, they have to see this as a service to their country. The bothersome deliberations and dismissal due to peremptory challenges tend to reinforce this negative view of this duty.
The other side of this argument rest primarily on the protection of the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant: right to an impartial jury. (1994, 1099) Though it may seem to be bothersome, it appears to be a means to secure fairness even before the trial starts. It has been used effectively in the past as a means to secure a decision from the jury itself. All in all, the job of the jury of peers is considerably important in these types of cases, however they are there to deliberate the fate of the defendant, was he/she legally liable or not. Peremptory challenges are there to make these actually practicable and in the same way protect the constitutional right of the defendant to an unbiased and objective jury.
IX. Conclusion
In this paper, the discussions on minority lawyers have presented the emerging trend on the legal profession. Moreover, the presence of minority lawyers has also been emphasized such that cause lawyering for minority groups would be possible. Though it appears that African-Americans have established a niche on this category, it would be ideal if all the minority groups have ample representation available. In essence, this would only be possible if the number of qualified and eligible minority students be given the right education and training so as they could enter law schools. In this manner, representation would be considered as a far flung predicament for minorities appearing in courts.
On the other hand, peremptory challenges are used by the legal profession not as a means to discriminate the jury, but to protect the defendant. For obvious reasons, the welfare of the defendant transcends the welfare of the jury in the legal setting. These tools are installed such that those who actually need protection are protected by the law.
Discussion Board
The judicial system is an integral part of the tripartite checks and balances present in any democratic government. It protects the rights of an individual from any form of abuse. Inside the courtroom, the defendant is permitted to have a speedy trial and impartial jury as stated in his Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment covers these protections from the defendant. The manipulation of the composition of a jury, such that the predictability of their collective decision is apparent, counts as an abuse against the defendant. The case of Strauder v West Virginia (1880) provided the claim that a jury should not be “composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race.”
Superficially, this claim indicates the need of a mixed jury. However, it seems that a more profound interpretation should be taken at this point. The intention of the decision in the said case indicates that the Sixth Amendment should still be at play in any case. (1994) More than that, the selection of the jury must be representative of the society wherein the crime was committed. This means that a laws and legislations are not necessary to ensure that a mixed jury has to be at play in any criminal process. The diversity of the jury merely reflects the level of diversity in the community where the defendant is being tried. Thus, any action by the representations of both the defendant and the claimant to provide a racially diverse jury is not as complicated as it seems.
It only comes as a complication if manipulative actions from both camps begin to start in the process. The discussion regarding peremptory challenges could be used as a means of determining as to whether a person would be doing jury duty. The uniqueness of the individual and not the color of the skin should be the sole determinant as to whether he/she is to contribute his/her services to the courts. The credentials and propensity to impartiality should be highlighted at this point, not as to whether he/she will identify with the plight of the defendant or the plaintiff because they share the same skin color. In the context of the legislature, its constant attempt to delve into the affairs of the judiciary is a detrimental act, particularly on the autonomy of the latter from the former. As it has been indicated in the existing literature, both branches of the government are co-equal bodies. ( 2003) This implies that the legislature should leave the judicial process alone.
Unit 4 – Sentencing
XI. Introduction
The criminal justice system is an arrangement of laws and decrees which guard and save community members and their property from harm. It resolves which occurrences bringing about harm or offence to community members, are considered criminal. Criminal offenders may possibly be reproved by means of law by fines, incarceration and/or community service. However, the punishment of criminal offenders could similarly be as severe as the imposition of death. This form of sentencing has been debated for decades particularly on he grounds of its reasonableness and morality. Capital punishment, in any angle, would essentially be the killing of another human being, regardless of whether he/she warrants it or not. The plethora of such discussions on the morality of the imposition of such punishment is as important as discussing as to the actual process in arriving at such judgment to impose the death penalty. This paper intends to discuss the imposition of death penalty in the criminal justice system and the rather arbitrary nature of the process. The arguments and observations are to be based on past and existing literature related to the issue of death penalty.
XII. Death Penalty
The imposition of capital punishment has been seen in history and literature as a means of imposing justice on earlier times. Early civilizations have used different means of imposing it from the rather crude methods like burning at the stake or crucifixion to the somewhat sophisticated like the gas chamber and lethal injection. However, the means of imposing such penalty presents some degree of “societal ambivalence.” (2004) This means that external factors do have a certain influence on the defendant receiving capital punishment verdict.
As seen in the case of American history, the handing a death sentence to an offender has acquired a “shaky consensus” among the public. (2004) And this has been triggered by considerable “racial, cultural, and criminological considerations.” () There has been different areas where the “morality, the justness, and the desirability and utility of the death penalty” are taken into consideration. ( 2003) Public policy has been used to measure its utility using history, developments, and statistics. () Public opinion has also done its share in analyzing the mechanics of the imposition of the punishment. However, there is still no indication that the process will essentially be discarded on the whole in the near future.
The most that the legal system could do is to take as much of the arbitrariness of the process involved in the provision of such judgments. Yes, the process is indeed arbitrary as seen in the definition of the Black Law Dictionary. (1991) It lacks guidelines and only looks for judicial precedence on such matters. The following discussions will be focusing on areas that make the imposition of the death penalty more arbitrary than it already is. Issues relating to the defendant itself will be discussed.
XIII. Arbitrariness of the Sentencing Process
The arbitrariness of the sentencing process has also been considered in a number of legal journals and scholarly articles regarding capital punishment. There are three major areas where these articles say that the imposition of capital punishment is indeed arbitrary. Particularly, factors relating to race, representation and juror mistakes have been noted as among those influencing the arbitrary nature of the judgments.
In the case of race, there are studies who claim that some of the judgments made with the case of capital punishment have been motivated by the subliminal prejudice relating to who made the crime and the victim of the crime. Particularly, race and socio-economic factors has become the staple factors in indicating this type of motivator in judgments. (2003,) Regrettably, this might have been true in the United States. In a study of (2003) they have found out that the race of the offender and the victim has an actual implication on the judgments of the court. The study said that a defendant, regardless on whether he is black or white, will have a greater propensity to receive a death sentence if they have murdered, intentionally or otherwise, a white person. On the other hand, the study of (2005) have indicated that majority of those who have been sentenced to death are blacks who have killed white victims. ()
In the case of representation, studies claim that the imposition of the capital punishment have been triggered by the inability of a defendant’s counsel to actively fight for his client’s case because of his/her limited capabilities. The quality of the representations made thus have an effect on the process. As said in the earlier argument, the socio-economic attribute of the defendant is among the factors that could determine his/her fate. (2003) If the defendant is well-off he/she could acquire top-rate attorneys who will put all their time and effort in exonerating him/her of the charges. On the other hand, if the defendant could not even afford a lawyer, then the state will provide him with a counsel.
And finally, the context of juror misperceptions has also hounded the courtroom with its influence in granting capital punishment verdicts. The problem resides on the gravity of the case. The question remains to linger as to whether a case so important should be left to the mercy of a jury. The issue aggravates when the jurors are uninformed and make decisions based on “capricious and arbitrary factors.” (2002) These factors could be racially motivated or basically based on limited knowledge of the gravity of the case, or even plain and irrelevant display of irreverence to the case.
XIV. Conclusion
Ideally, death penalty should be considered as tool for crime control measures, a deterrent of sorts. The problem lies in the fact that in actual death penalty cases, the worst offenders does not actually receive such punishment. In its place, factors that are inexplicably ludicrous tend to dictate the fate of a defendant. This paper has presented several factors that tend to highlight the gamut influencing the imposition of capital punishment. It is arbitrary. No one could stop any judge or jury from exercising their individual biases and preconceived judgments of the defendant. In an ideal world, all these would be inexistent. It is the position of this paper that the imposition of death penalty is not the panacea of society. Unless these farcical factors like economics and natural features are purged from the system, then the imposition of capital punishment should cease. These factors are poor criteria on who gets to live and who gets crucified.
Discussion Board
The criminal history of a defendant should not be relevant in legal proceedings. One major reason is that it provides a situation where the judgment may be clouded regarding the degree of punishment or exoneration imposed on the defendant. ( 2003) There may also be a tendency for courts to look back too far on the past of the defendant. Prior criminal conduct on this case would be irrelevant specifically in instances where the current crime would have been years after the previous one. Moreover, the seriousness of the crime should take precedence on this matter as compared to the criminal history of the defendant. (2004) Courts should not confuse the two.
Courts must realize that the defendant is being tried for the current offense, not on what he did some years ago. Departing from the current offense and consulting previous ones could only make indications on the character of the person. (2000) For instance, courts wouldn’t have a hard time deciding on a verdict of a defendant suspected of murder if the evidence points towards him/her. Murder is murder, regardless on whether the defendant did it the first time or not. It does not diminish the seriousness of the crime.
On this account, it is thus the stand of this claim that criminal history is not relevant as a legal variable. It should not be taken as an indicator of the degree of punishment a defendant would acquire. It would not be fair and just for the person if he is judged for a current case based on a past conviction. In its place, the seriousness of the crime should take precedence.
Unit 5 – Youth and Corrections
XVI. Introduction
The criminal justice system has taken upon itself to address the need of the entire society, not just a selected few. Youth offenders have similarly been under the watchful eye of scholars and academics, not only in terms of the reasons they act in such deviant means but on how they are to be rehabilitated and function as productive citizens. The following discussions will provide a discussion on restorative justice and the possibility of using it in concurrence with juvenile offences.
XVII. Restorative Justice
Restorative justice is a kind of criminal justice theory that pertains primarily to a more personal level as compared to other theories of criminal justice. In this theory, the offence is an act against the community or to another individual not against the state. ( 2000) According to the work of and (2000), the said theory is composed of several factors that constitute a framework. These include “the nature of crime, the goal of justice, the role of victims, the role of offenders, the role of the local community, and the role of the formal criminal/juvenile justice system.”
This alternative theory is said to be applicable to an aspect of criminal justice that appears to be considerably sensitive. Specifically, the said theory would be ideal for juvenile delinquency. Such practices like “circle sentencing, victim/offender conferencing, family group conferencing, victim-offender mediation, and reparation boards” could help the juvenile delinquent in finding the right path to a more socially acceptable set of behaviors. (2004)
XVIII. Police Contact: White vs. Non-White Juveniles
There are several reasons why juveniles of different races incur more arrests than their white counterparts. Several studies have pointed this out in their findings. To illustrate, the study of and (1999) indicate that Mexican juvenile delinquents have to take on variables like “conflict, inconsistent discipline, maternal monitoring, and negative peer hassles.” According to the said study, these factors aggravate the antisocial behavior of the Mexican adolescent thus making him/her prone to police contact. () On the other hand, and (1999) indicated that the African-American adolescent have a considerably high risk factor as compared to other minority groups. () However, it must be noted that the study only focused on the level of risk factors that African-American adolescents have in terms of substance use. This means that police contact may or may not ensue after the antisocial behavior has taken place.
This shows that aside from the environmental factors affecting the non-while juveniles, they have to similarly contend with their own personal conflict. Their upbringing and economic stature similarly comes to play in these instances. Arrests thus become the culminating factor that these juvenile have to essentially brand themselves as delinquents.
XIX. Harsh Treatment: An Explanation
The offending juvenile is subjected to a court similar to those that hear adult offenses. This is called the “juvenile court.” They tend to hear offenses and provide rehabilitative programs for erring adolescents. However, a study provided by (1997) indicated that juvenile offenders are essentially treated similar as those with their adult counterparts. () This means that they are subjected to the same subconscious prejudice that adults encounter during their trial. (2003,) This indicates that the results of studies pertaining to discrimination do apply similar to the juvenile delinquents of the country. (2003)
Discussion Board
Criminal Justice is not racist. Possibly, there is some truth in the statement. The theories of criminal justice, as illustrated in the case of restorative justice, present the actual ends why it exists, to establish order. ( 2004) The theory does impose rather stringent stress on equality and equal treatment among races, however there is still an element that essentially makes this theory flawed: it fails to realize that individuals hold certain preexisting notions of a particular person which is highly indicative on the race or ethnicity of any individual. (2003) Some call these stereotypes some call it racial profiling but the sad thing is that it does exist. In the courtroom and in the streets, racist perception is present.
Despite all these, one has to contend that criminal justice is not racist. It is more of the people who implement it that tend to become inclined to refer on racial differences. The counsels tend to identify with the plight of their clients especially when they share the same ethnicity. (2005) Judges tend to impose death penalty to a person who killed a white folk. (2003) These instances shows that it is flawed individuals who implement these racially driven actions. The public thus is on a losing end because these flawed individuals tend to use the powers vested on the criminal justice system in accordance to their interest, conscious or subconscious.
The criminal justice system provided society watchers such that order is maintained. In the end, society is hounded of the fact that there is no one to watch over these watchers. Who will put them to justice? Unless there is an effective check and balance imposed on the system, racially driven actions will still be prevalent.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment