I had a conversation last night with a friend who claims that the disparities in incarceration rates between American whites and blacks is evidence of a racist justice system. She said that whites are sentenced more leniently than blacks for the same crimes under the same circumstances and I disagreed, pending evidence. In the context of the discussion there wasn't much opportunity for research, but I did some scrounging around the web this morning.
Here's a memo from Human Rights Watch that gives some statistics on the racially disproportionate incarceration of drug offenders. Essentially, more blacks go to jail for drug crimes than whites, and for longer terms. The most significant aspect of the memo, however, is the conclusion -- which echos my position from last night.
The specific reasons for the discrepancy between the black proportion of felony drug convictions and of drug admissions have not been analyzed. They may include such factors as the type of drug offense, the type of drug, and the presence of prior record. For example, blacks comprised 56 percent of persons convicted of trafficking felonies while whites comprised 43 percent.When these critical factors are controlled for, it may turn out that blacks are imprisoned at a rate disproportionate to their population simply because they commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Other important factors may include whether or not the offender was abused as a child, whether he grew up in a single-parent family, and so forth. If so, these imprisonment statistics aren't evidence of racism inherent in the system.
This you would find interesting, I am posting it tomorrow:
Laws across the country that bar felons from voting disproportionately affect Latinos, as well as African Americans, according to a study released Wednesday by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
The report -- which looked at 10 states, including California -- found that Latinos were as much as three times more likely to lose their right to vote from felony disenfranchisement than the population at large. Of 280, 000 disenfranchised Californians, 100,000 of them are Latinos, the report said.
Still, the question is why there are so many minority felons. If it's simply because they choose to commit more felonies, then so be it. I don't have any problem with disenfranchising felons.
My opinion has always been that if the death penalty/justice system/etc is racist because it's executing/imprisoning too many minorities, the solution isn't, as many people who carp about that think, to let more minorities off.
It's to execute more white people.
Question: is the justice system also sexist, as men make up the vast majority of both convicts and death row inmates?
IIRC, the penalties for crack (the poor black man drug) are disproportionally high relative to rock cocaine (the rich white guy drug). I don't think this is done with the intent to discriminate against blacks, so much as to come down harder on the drugs that seem to be doing more real damage to the community.
I think the problem is American society as a whole. We think of minorities as something akin to naturally-born criminals, and if they do good, they've "worked their way up", whereas if a white person becomes a criminal, they've somehow "fallen".
The problem is when they come out where are there rights? Why so many felons? That is an open question. Let's look to those who are the least fortunate and struggle for economic equality and you'd probably find the most crimes. No, I am not making excuses but stating a possibility of the cause.
XRLQ,
I think the problem w/ Crack was economics -it's high turnover. Cheap, fast, and high profits. That was a drug that was out of control.
LP: Are you saying that felons should be able to vote once they're released from prison? Maybe. I'm not entirely against it, I suppose, but I'd have to be convinced.
And there are a lot of poor people who don't commit crimes, and a lot of rich people who do. Poverty may affect the types of crimes (or immoralities) someone commits, but I don't think it changes human nature. At least not at the levels of poverty seen in the US... no one here has to steal food in order to survive, for instance.
Let's look to those who are the least fortunate and struggle for economic equality and you'd probably find the most crimes.
Of course, that doesn't account for Martha Stewart, Ken Lay, Ivan Boesky, Mike Milken, et cetera ad nauseum- nor why overall crime rates were much lower during the Depression.
Mike:
Okay, I have to ask: what is the prolem with letting felons vote after they served their time and "paid their debt to society..."
Scott:
Since you are quoting historical facts where during the Depression were most crimes committed? Key words here are "most," in current response and the latter.
LP: The whole "paid their debt to society" thing is a nice phrase, but it doesn't carry and real legal or philisophical weight. We don't let felons own handguns, or run bars or pre-schools, and so forth. There's already a mechanism for restoring rights to individual people who live exemplary post-conviction lives: executive pardons. I think felons should have to take positive action to be restored, it shouldn't be automatic.
As for the Depression, my understanding is that people were actually starving then. In modern America you can eat for less than $1 per day, and food is easy to get from charity. There's no excuse for crime due to poverty.
Xlrq:
IIRC, the penalties for crack (the poor black man drug) are disproportionally high relative to rock cocaine (the rich white guy drug).
Uh...hello..."crack" and "rock cocaine" are one and the same. Same thing, different names.
HTH
-AR
AG.
Crack is the garbage by-product of cocaine...
MW.
And you are right about poverty not being an excuse, and I am not giving excuses. But simply stating their are more crimes in poorer neighboorhoods than rich - at least obvious or recorded ones.
LP: I bet crime correlates more with unemployment than directly with poverty.
Good point.