American Inmates: Why Minorities
are the Majority in Prison
American
prisons are full of convicted felons having a diverse mixture of ages and
racial backgrounds serving a judicially imposed sentence for their crime.
However, despite the wide array of races housed in America’s prisons, there is
a significantly higher ratio of minority inmates to non-minority inmates incarcerated.
There are many common assumptions for the cause of this disparity, such as an
unfair judicial system or cultural factors. While some groups may argue
otherwise, it is the social and environment influences in the lives
of minorities that influence crime and higher poverty levels in such groups
that reduce the availability for private legal counsel resulting in high
conviction rates. Even though racial profiling
by law enforcement and in the judiciary system may exist, a higher rate of
crime amongst minorities is the cause for a disparity of minority inmate
population in American prisons.
In America the racial groups classified as minorities are Hispanics,
Blacks or African-Americans, and Asians. According to the U.S. census taken in
2010, Blacks or African Americans made up 12.9 percent of the entire American
population, followed by Hispanics which made up 12.5 percent of the population.
Asians made up only 4.2 percent of the population. Americans identified as White or Caucasian
represented 77.1 percent of the population making this racial group the obvious
majority (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In some cases depending on a state by
state look at the population, minority groups are considered the dominant race;
however, the overall representation across the country for minorities if quite
lower than one would expect when reviewing the population count incarcerated.
Despite the low percentage minorities represent in America, the
minority population in American prisons is disproportionately high. As of July
27, 2013, Blacks accounted for 37.1 percent of the inmates, Hispanics made up
34.9 percent, and Asians made up 1.6 percent (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2013).
Though the majority of men and women incarcerated are White, these numbers
affirm the great disparity in the inmate population in comparison to the entire
population. Indeed, there is reason to
question the cause of such over representation of minority groups. There are
several theories for this case.
Some may argue that the
high rate of minorities incarcerated is due to racial profiling in the judicial
process. While this may be possible to a
limited degree, research shows that our judicial system, from police encounters
to judges’ sentencing, is fair and relevant to the crime committed and not based
on the racial affiliations of the men and women in question. As stated by the
New Century Foundation (2005), “For someone to go to prison, four things have
to happen. The police must arrest him for a felony, charges must be filed, he
must plead or be found guilty, and a judge must sentence him to prison” (pg. 2).
While racial discrimination can happen at any of these four stages, the
likelihood for an innocent party to continue through the process to an unfair
sentencing by a judge is unlikely.
The first stage of an
inmate’s incarceration, and perhaps the most controversial, is the contact with
a law enforcement officer for a crime having been reported or reasonable
suspicion that a crime act is being committed. Many of such arrests are made
from police patrolling high-crime neighborhoods, which tend to be high-minority
neighborhoods, for specific crimes. This places police in contact with Blacks
or African Americans more frequently than Whites (Piquero, 2008). There is argument
to this being considered discrimination and racial profiling; however, at most
this is classified as ‘rational discrimination’ in that it is considered
logical and acceptable for police in this instance to target neighborhoods
based on the reasonable belief that they are prone to criminal activity
(Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). As cited by
the New Century Foundation (2005), “Police argue that they are targeting
criminals, not non-whites, and that they arrest large numbers of minorities
only because minorities are committing a large number of crimes.” (pg. 2). This
is a unanimously agreed with statement amongst law enforcement. The rate at
which minorities are arrested reflects the rate in which crime occurs.
With the increase concern over drug crimes
since the 1980’s (particularly crack-cocaine and methamphetamines) police have
no choice but to monitor neighborhoods where drug dealers and users traffic for
police to make arrests when this crime occurs.
It goes to follow that what is seen as acceptable in police patrol
varies widely. One’s personal contact with police and the portrayal of many law
enforcement groups by the media (e.g. Rodney King) play a large factor in
negative attitudes that are held towards police, particularly by minority
groups. Such attitudes have been found to be linked toward higher arrest rates
as uncooperative behavior or overt avoidance of police arouses police
suspicion. This leads to encounters that might not have occurred otherwise.
Assuming that an
individual has been arrested, there is enough evidence of a crime having been committed
to charge them, and they have been found guilty of such charges by a jury of
their peers, the decision for how they are punished will belong to the judge.
This point will determine if the offender is incarcerated and how long the
sentence will be. There is a great amount of media which assumes harsher and
lengthier sentences are given to minorities than to White persons. Historically this may have been the case as
judges were allotted much more discretion over determining sentences in
criminal court. This variance in
sentencing led to the establishment of federal sentencing guidelines in 1987,
which then dictated the sentences ranges of crimes leaving only a small margin
for a judge’s personal discretion (as cited in Miceli, 2008). The purpose for
the small remaining margin of discretion is to apply necessary variances to
tailor to individual circumstances, such as the details of the crime and the
offender’s criminal history. Miceli
(2008) states that “the primary goal of punishment is deterrence. Sentences are
therefore set prospectively, with the aim of inducing only those offenders who
value a crime more than its social harm to commit it” (pg. 207). The variance
allows for judges to act with the aim of reducing repeat charges based on
legitimate evidence to suggest there is (or is not) a need for heavier
sentencing within the allotted range. With this in mind, it is evident that
there is little to no room for racial profiling or discrimination to exist in
the judicial system. The mass numbers of arrest which in turn lead to
convictions are evidence that the judicial system is responsive to the crime
proven to be committed; It does not, in fact, target individual groups.
In short, before even
arriving to the position of sentencing, law enforcement must first charge the
person with a felony crime and provide enough evidence to support the charge.
Then a trial by jury must decide upon his or hers guilt. Without a substantial amount of evidence to
persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged is guilty,
there is no way to continue through the process to sentencing and
incarceration. The many check points that one must go through ensure that
discrimination and false accusations will not take responsibility for
convictions. Most inmates, regardless of
their racial classification, have reason for being arrested and are in fact
guilty of their crime.
A better understanding of
why minorities are over-represented in American prisons comes from a close look
at the social and economic factors present in the lives of many minority
groups. Poverty, poor education levels, and poor family structure play a major
factor in the cause of criminal behavior among young adults. These factors play
an equal part in the spawning of criminal behavior amongst minorities.
Though these factors are
present in every racial group they are more prominent among Blacks or African
Americans and Hispanics. As of 2010 the National Poverty Center reports the
rates for poverty among these two minority groups to far exceed the national
average. Single parent families have the
highest poverty rates, particularly for Black and Hispanic single mothers. Nearly
a quarter of the child population in the United States was considered poor with
the majority of which being children of Hispanic or African American origins
(National Poverty Center, 2013). These statistics include White people as well;
however, the great numbers reflect the same disparity amongst minorities that
is seen in the prison population.
Poverty is perhaps the root of all causes for
juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior as it forms a circle of cause
and consequence. Poverty and the symptoms of it breed further criminals and
continued poverty. Dr. Patrick Fagan,
and expert sociologist specializing in crime and family, theorizes that there
are five stages a person goes through from childhood to adulthood. In stage one of his theory, a child receives
parental neglect, abandonment, or instability in his or her life, often due to
the loss of his or her mother or father to crime life and prison. The breakdown
of the family in this case leads to stage two where he or she finds a sense of
belonging in an “embryonic gang”.
Behavioral changes such as violence begin to occur, further isolating
the child from “normal” children and closer to other similarly hostile and
aggressive children. Stage three brings
the official joining of a gang, the formation of an identity, and the adoption
of delinquent acts which leads to dropping out of school. At stage four, the child or young adult
commits his or her first crimes which gradually build up in nature and
severity. The criminal is created at a young age with a juvenile arrest record
and at or before early adulthood the criminal becomes a parent. This brings about
the start of stage one all over again (Fagan, 1995). It cannot be taken literally for every case
but this pattern in general does have validity.
The life a child is born into greatly influences the decisions they will
make. For many Hispanic and Black children this cycle is broken if they are
able to come through the first few of Fagan’s stages without defiance, though
the effect poverty has on education is overwhelmingly high.
School is found to be a
hardship for minority students living in poverty. Many parents are uneducated
themselves, or they speak little or no English.
Transportation to and from school or the need to supplement family
income from an outside job contribute to absenteeism (American Graduate,
2013). The struggle through school, and
in some cases the lack of quality schools in low income neighborhoods, places a
higher risk for students to drop out. Not having a high school diploma or a
G.E.D. results in poor pay rates for future careers.
As great of a factor as education
is the family structure and the means that provide for the family. Fault in these aspects may be even more to
blame than educational challenges. According to Patrick Fagan (1995) “There is a wealth of evidence in the professional literature of
criminology and sociology to suggest that the breakdown of family is the real root cause of crime in
America. But the orthodox thinking in official Washington assumes that crime is caused by material
conditions, such as poor employment opportunities and a shortage of adequately
funded state and federal social programs” (para. 3). Certainly both arguments hold validity and contribute
greatly to the high rate of minorities in prison. Limited government programs
leave many families in need of proper clothing, adequate and substantial food
supply, and quality education. For the
unemployed adult, the lack of or limited assistance from government programs
create desperation. Criminal activity is
often the outcome of such desperation resulting in crimes such as burglary,
domestic abuse, and the use or sale of street drugs.
Additionally the breakdown of the family can cause a financial
burden to a household income. With the
absence of a parent comes the loss of income that parent once provided. The limited financial means impacts more than
just the adults maintaining the household budget; children and young adults are
impacted just as much. Poor housing conditions or homelessness may be the most visibly
prominent consequence of a lost parent. Families under fiscal distress are
resorted to living in low income housing or homeless shelters. These communities are often riddled with
drugs and violence which begin the negative influence of street life and quick
money; of which comes a new set of norms for behavior which is contrary to the
mainstream of society (Piquero, 2008). With the culmination of these
circumstances, from the breakdown of the family, the lack of financial and
social assistance, and the rise of the street life, comes an inevitable higher
rate of arrest.
Early introduction to
criminal activity can be associated with higher adult conviction rates as
lifestyle habits are made. Lengthier
incarceration periods are applied as arrest records become a consideration upon
judicial sentencing. The same findings apply to non-minorities yet the rate of
which is significantly much less, just as the poverty rates for non-minorities
are much less. Alex Piquero (2008) explains that “minorities are
overrepresented at every stage of the criminal and juvenile justice system
because they commit more crimes, for more extended periods of their lives, and
more of the types of crime, such as violence, that leads to processing within
the criminal justice system” (“Theory: Explaining Disproportionate Minority
Contact”, para. 2). This explains the
reasoning between longer incarceration times as the criminal behavior for so
many is a prolonged build up.
It can also be noted that due to financial struggles making up
more of the minority population than those of White or Caucasian people, the
difference in resources for criminal defense will vary as well. Private defense
attorneys are costly and are often not an affordable option. Private attorneys
are more likely to represent persons of middle class while those in poverty
levels are provided court appointed public defenders. Both private attorneys and public defenders
are certified attorneys having graduated from an accredited law school;
however, there is a vast difference between the quality of representation by
public and private attorneys. Public
defenders serve those with low-income. Consequently, they typically have large
case-loads which vary in type from violence, drunk driving, and sexual
crimes. Private attorneys provide more
face to face time with their clients. They offer more attention to individual cases
and have a specialization in the particular type of law their client faces. The
chances for an acquittal of charges in much higher with the use of a private attorney
as well as shortened sentencing times for those found guilty. The possibility of a life sentence is reduced
by over 60 percent with the use of a private counsel (Joy & McMunigal,
2012). This leaves persons of low
income, the majority being Hispanic and Black or African Americans, less likely
to be released of charges than persons of middle class income.
Obviously financial stability
plays a central role in the life of a criminal.
The impact of poverty affects all aspects from family lifestyles and educational
opportunities to legal representation. The economic status of a criminal is
generally poor or close to it, a fact that cannot be ignored. Additionally, the social and emotional
circumstances that are prevalent in the homes of low-income families prepare
children for delinquency through their young years to adulthood. This pattern
is present among all racial groups but certainly more prevalent among Hispanics
and Black or African Americans. Though there is argument that the law enforcement
targets these groups, there is no proof to support such claims. It would be impossible to completely
eliminate a person’s beliefs and racial discrimination all together. Therefore,
it is possible that there may be a limited amount of discrimination in the
judicial process; however, that also implies that the limited discrimination
would be broad and does not necessarily affect only minorities. The process of obtaining a criminal
conviction is unanimous throughout the entire American population. The over representation of minorities in
American prisons is the fault of the social and economic differences in the
cultures of American minorities.
References
American Graduate.
(2013). Factors in Dropping Out: Poverty. Retrieved on September 7, 2013 from
http://americangraduate.org/dropout-factors/poverty.
Fagan, P. (1995) The Real Root Cause of Violent
Crime. Vital Speeches of the Day, 62(5), 157-158. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.
Federal Bureau of
Prisons. (2013). Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved September
7, 2013, from http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp
Joy, P., &
McMunigal, K. (2012). Does the Lawyer Make a Difference? Public Defender v.
Appointed Counsel. Criminal Justice, 27(1),
46-48. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/sp12_ethics.authcheckdam.pdf
Kerby, S. (2012,
March). The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal
Justice in the United States. Center for American Progress. Retrieved on August
30, 2013 from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/.
Meyer, F. A.
(1989). The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System (Book). Policy Studies
Review, 8(3), 731-733.
Miceli, T. J.
(2008). Criminal Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion. Contemporary
Economic Policy, 26(2), 207-215.
National Poverty
Center. (2013) Poverty in the United States Frequently Asked Questions. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Retrieved on September 6, 2013 from http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
New Century
Foundation. (2005) The Color of Crime. Race, Crime and Justice in America.
Second Edition. Retrieved on September 5, 2013 from http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf
Piquero, A. R.
(2008). Disproportionate Minority Contact. The Future of Children 18(2),
59-79. Princeton University. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from Project MUSE
database.
U.S. Census Bureau.
(2012). The Asian Population: 2010. Retrieved on September 7, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/prod/census2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau.
(2012). The White Population: 2010. Retrieved on September 7, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/prod/census2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf
U.S. Census
Bureau. (2012). The Hispanic Population: 2010. Retrieved on September 7, 2013
from http://www.census.gov/prod/census2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
U.S. Census
Bureau. (2012). The Black Population: 2010. Retrieved on September 7, 2013 from
http://www.census.gov/prod/census2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf
Weitzer, R. J. &
Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially Biased Policing: Determinants of Citizen
Perceptions. Social Forces 83(3), 1009-1030. Oxford University Press.
Retrieved September 5, 2013, from Project MUSE database.
