Racial Disparity in Sentencing Essay Example

cases have generally found that, in the vast majority of cases, if the murder victim is White, the defendant is more likely to receive a death sentence.

In a few Jurisdictions, notably the federal system, minority defendants (especially Blacks) are more likely to receive a death sentence (Spohn, 2000, p. 453). For example, a study of the Maryland capital punishment system published in 003 found that although the race of the victim did not affect the decision of the Jury to sentence the defendant to death, among all death-eligible homicides, killers of White victims are still three times more likely to be sentenced to death than comparably situated killers of non-white victims (Paternoster & Brame, 2003).

The disparity between White-victim and non-white victim in this instance arose from the prosecutions more often in White- victim cases than non-white-victim cases. Causes of racial disparity in sentencing: Overreliance in incarceration: The political furor over crime during the past two decades has driven legislatures to ass increasingly punitive laws resulting in enormous growth in prison and Jail populations. At the end of 2006, one in 31 individuals was under some sort of criminal Justice supervision (e. . , prison, Jail, parole, or probation), and the majority of them were people of color. The enormous increase in the use of Jails and prisons has taken place without persuasive evidence indication that incarcerative strategies are the only, or even the most effective, approach to controlling crime. Very little by way of Job training, rehabilitation, or education occurs in prison, so when inmates are eleased they face myriad obstacles as they attempt to reenter society.

Overt racial bias: Criminal Justice practitioners,

like others, are likely to identify with those who look and act like themselves. Thus, Judges and prosecutors may be more receptive to consideration of pretrial or sentencing options with defendants with whom they feel some connection. This is likely to hold true for all racial and ethnic groups. Understanding these dynamics reinforces the necessity to maintain a diverse and representative system of Justice to more equitably meet the legitimate needs of all persons in the system (2004).

Venue and Jury selection: The phrase "location is everything" can ring painfully true for those who are punished for being placed on trial in the wrong neighborhood. Sometimes prosecutors choose venues for defendants that result in "all white Juries" (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). The secondary problem of selecting a Jury, especially in cases involving black defendants is caused by questioning the Jurors as a group, rather than privately. Some prospective Jurors will be the epitome of political correctness in front of others, but when questioned in private their racism is revealed.

Additionally, the se of the Witherspoon questioning method in capital cases excludes many black potential Jurors because a large percentage of the African American population is opposed to the death penalty (Tabak, 1999, p. 6-7). The Witherspoon method asks potential Jurors whether or not they would be in favor of the death penalty. Those who would never be willing to impose the death penalty, and in capital cases would vote for the death penalty could be excluded from the Jury. Prosecutorial discretion in selection of Jurisdictional venue has also perpetrated racial disparities in sentencing with respect to cocaine cases.

An illustration of this is United States.

v. Armstrong, a case involving allegations that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles selectively pursued and charged blacks in crack cocaine cases. Since the inception of mandatory minimum cocaine laws in 1986 to the advent of the Armstrong case, not a single white offender had been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in federal courts serving Los Angeles and its six surrounding counties. Rather, virtually all white offenders were prosecuted in state court, where they were not subject to that drugs lengthy mandatory minimum sentences.

The impact of the ecision to prosecute the black defendants in federal court was significant. In federal court they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum if prosecuted in California state court, the defendants would have received a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of five years (United States v. Armstrong, 1996). Questionable prosecutorial discretion: Racial disparities are also found in motions from prosecutors to depart from the sentencing guidelines.

Studies have shown that downward departures are most frequently granted to whites, who receive lower sentences for providing substantial ssistance in 25% of their cases, compared to 18. 3% of blacks. With respect to cocaine cases, nearly 33% of powder cocaine defendants received a departure for substantial assistance, compared to 28% of crack cocaine cases (The Kennedy Commission, 2003). Possible solutions to decrease racial disparity in sentencing: Sentencing practices need to consider both the short-term and long-term consequences of choosing imprisonment over sentencing alternatives that have demonstrated success.

Thorough legislative impact analyses such as legislatively mandated racial impact statements would identify probable disproportionate racial onsequences and signal the need to seek alternative problem-solving

strategies to eliminate or significantly reduce such effects. In 2008, Iowa and Connecticut passed legislation that requires lawmakers to consider the impact of proposed sentencing laws on racial and ethnic groups. Requirements to conduct racial impact analyses can promote a more deliberative strategy development process that requires the use of public and private resources in the community (Mauer, 2007, p. 9-46).

Guarding against racist attitudes among criminal Justice professionals is especially important, both because of the expectation that they must always act Justly nd because they are so often called upon to exercise coercive authority over the citizenry. Therefore, there should be no relaxation of training in human relations, of orientation to the cultures and subcultures of the people with whom criminal Justice agents interact daily, and of supervisory oversight designed to detect and correct bias in the attitudes, speech, and behavior of subordinate personnel(, 2004, p. ).

In conclusion, this country was founded on the principle that all were created equal. We are a nation of laws that promote liberty and Justice for all without regard to race, thnic origin, religion, creed, or gender. We are mindful that our nation's racial history has sorely tested those beliefs of equality, liberty, and Justice, and that there should be no room for the vestiges of racial or ethnic discrimination in our criminal justice system.

The criminal Justice system is often viewed with a great deal of distrust because of the disproportionate numbers of African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, and other racial or ethnic minorities in United States' Jails and prisons-and especially because of the disproportionate severity in their sentences. Racial disparity in sentencing in todays courtrooms

is a very serious issue that must necessarily be proactively addressed especially because one in every 15 Black men in America is incarcerated compared to one out of every 100 white men.