The Impact of Race on Sentencing within the US Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

Topic: The Impact of Race on Sentencing within the US Criminal Justice System INTRODUCTION The Society in the American horizon confronts daily challenges when its institutions that are mandated to bring equality to the justice system in society do not meet the benchmark in terms of justice. For, the society of colored people today have the idea that cooperation and peace must be handed to them on a silver platter after having undergone years of savagery, death and brutality that had and still is aided by some institutions of the land. These institutions include the justice system composed of the courts and the police department. The following paragraphs explains how race affects sentencing within the US Criminal Justice System. BODY Hypothesis (null): Race does not affect Sentencing within the US Criminal Justice System. Hypothesis (alternate): Race affects Sentencing within the US Criminal Justice System. The Highly publicized Rodney King beating that gripped the media for several weeks, the Shooting of Amadou Diallo and the torture of Abner Louima are proofs that there race influences how police officers and the courts treat the Colored people of the United States. For, within the fine lines of Blind Justice for all, justice is not the same when applied to both the Whites and the Colored residents of the United States. Definitely, justice theoretically must be delivered by the foundations of the justice system. It is said that the complexity of modern life has left the American society with different forms of sociological experiences. This experiences include the uncertainties as well as the certainties of life. The society today often causes irrational behavior among the members of society even to the point making them violate the law. Also, the absence of trust in society creates disintegration of a persons' sense of self and community. In this regard, White racist practices sometimes create an erosion of this trust that the colored members of American society are dying to receive after many years of slavery. This article shows that many of the evidences to pin down the colored people when they are given their day in court are fabricated. In one incident, Javier Ovando of Southern California had a legal battle with the Rampart Division of the LAPD. Javier was released from when only after one of the police officers, Rafael Perez, who arrested him admitted that they had shot Javier several times and admittedly planted a gun on him to seal the case. LAPD Rafael Perez and his fellow officers lied in court and said that he had attacked them with his gun and that the police officers had to fire back in defense. To reiterate, the story of the Rodney King, Tyisha Miller, Amadou Diallo, Javier Ovando, Robert Schenck and many other colored peoples in the United States can be termed 'markers' of the possibility of the colored people to fly to 'freedom from racism' is hampered by the white racist attitudes. In another case, ther Ruth Marcu, "Supreme Court Overturns Law Barring Hate Crimes', Washington Post, June 23, 1992, The American Civil Liberties Union had won its case to engage in cross burnings. For the U.S. Supreme Court decision was that these burning acts are part of the First Amendment benefits. The court here gave impunity to one WHITE teenager to burn a cross on lawn owned by a African American (Feagin, Vera & Batur, 2001, p. 150). In the article Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases, An Idea Whose Time has Come (Again) The authors there is a disparity in the sentencing in the United States. Many critics of the 1970s American justice system were disheartened at the wide margin in terms of implementing court decisions as well as the sentencing when both information were compared using the Whites and the colored people as the variables for the research. The judges then were so racially biased in terms of imposing punishment. The application of fixed sentences had been hoped be level the playing field in terms of sentencing between the Whites and the colored people. Also, the establishment of fixed penalties in laws was hoped to bring similar treatments between the whites and the colored people. The sentencing guidelines were hoped to bring similar minimum penalties for a specific crime irrespective of the race of the defendant. However, many scholars have argued that this sentencing policy has not curbed the racial biases of the White judges. The determinate sentencing only transfers the role of sentencing from the judge to the prosecutors and probation officers. For, the critics voiced out that this sentencing process would still be tainted with racial bias. This same article also states that race plays a major factor in terms of the judges' decision and sentencing activity. In terms of total offenders sentenced, the whites have done down from it current 66% before this new federal sentencing guidelines to only 44.5%. On the other hand, this new sentencing process saw an increase in the Hispanic's sentencing from its current 8.5% to a very high level of 26.3%. Also, the Judges' decision to lessen or increase the sentences of the convicted felons were influenced by the race of the defendant and the judge himself or herself. In addition, the focus placed on the defendants' previous criminal records were also racially infected. For, the colored were overpresented in terms of the past crimes committed whereas the whites were not as represented in terms of their past criminal records. This was often the handiwork of the White Police officers handling their cases. A research on the average federal sentence lengths for males within the age ranges from eighteen to thirty five using a before deadline and after deadline variable glaringly shows that the new sentencing process has not decreased the racial discrimination in terms of court decisions and sentencing. For, the punishment imposed on African -Americans were two months longer than the sentences banged down on the White offenders. Further, the differences between sentences for the African -Americans and the Whites borders was twenty -five months under the new sentencing law. On the other hand, the difference between the sentencing of whites and colored before the new sentencing guidelines was only a mere seven months. In addition, the sentence difference between the Whites and the Colored for violent crimes committed was only six months before the implementation of the new sentencing law. Whereas, the difference between the sentencing of the Whites and the colored after the implementation of the new sentencing law was only sadly higher at thirteen months. Thus, the new sentencing law had not remedied the bias of the judges but only transferred elsewhere the racial discrimination in terms of sentencing in the US. Criminal Justice System. In addition, racial bias will play an important factor in terms of sentencing. The racial bias of the jury would generally fall under the determination of the defendant's guilt and sentences handed down on this same defendant. The research here further confirms that transferring the sentencing from the Judge to the jury does not eliminate racial bias in sentencing to the eyes of the defendant. Additional research on this area show that race composition of the jury plays an important factor on the sentencing of the defendant. In addition research shows that the racial attack occurs most often in the pre -trial stage. Also, even though the racial bias in the imposition of sentences in capital punishment cases cannot be proven to be coming from the jury, many studies have shown that the jury members would have higher probabilities of sentencing a colored person to the gallows than a White defendant. In addition, racial bias is less evident in non -capital offense cases. Furthermore, sociological researches prove that the race of the jury members affects their sentencing decisions. In fact, Sweeney and Hany Stated that the frequency of racially biased sentencing judgments is like to be even greater in capital offenses -where the juries give the sentences. Logically, the sentencing has been taken over by some inexperienced law makers and administrators of the land in the hope that racial bias in case decisions and sentencing would fall on level playing fields. For the law makers generally make their laws based on the public's sentiments or outcries. For the lawmakers are voted into political power (Lanni, 1999). In another article, Gottschall in 1983 found in his research that the decisions and sentences handed down by white judges varied with the decisions and sentences handed down by Colored judges. He concluded that the race of the Judge played an important role in his court decision and sentence making activities. The colored judges handed down more lenient sentences as compared to the sentences given by the white judges. Also, the colored judge would prefer of the claimant in racial discrimination issues. Research further shows that the judicial race has little predictive power. In a study of Philadelphia judges, their decisions made based on many factors not only race. The Philadelphia judges' race played only a minor role in their court decision and sentencing policies. In a research of Metro judges however, the race of the Judges there played a significant role in their decision making activities. Also, Spohn compared the decision making activities of the sexual abuse cases that were handled by both colored and white court judges in the Detroit courts of Justice. Spohn's research showed that the colored judged meted out the same decisions and handed down the same sentences as the white judges. However, Welch discovered in his research of the Metro Judges that there were differences between the decision given out by the colored judges and the white judges. Welch also concluded that the colored judges had a higher probability of sending white offenders to spend some of the lifetime in jail. Welch concluded that the Metro Judges who are colored treated the colored and white offenders on the same level. Whereas, the white Metro Judges implemented harsher sentences to the colored offenders as compared with the sentences handed down to the same white judges on white law violators. Statistically, the black judges had sentenced 72.9 percent of colored offenders whereas the white judges had jailed 74.2 percent of colored offenders. The research also shows that some colored and white court of justice decision makers had given more harsh sentences to colored offenders than white offenders that committed the same crime intensity. However, other colored judges give the same harsh sentences to colored offenders as the white judges. Meaning, both colored and white judges would openly give jail sentences to colored offenders. Generally, the offenders here are charged with felony. In Welch' research, he included also the nonviolent crimes like larceny, drug cases and driving under the influence of intoxicating drinks. The Welch study shows that colored judges had the same score as the white judges in terms of sending the colored criminals to jail. Her study shows that the colored criminals who victimized colored persons were jailed 75.1 percent. Whereas, the colored criminals who victimized whites were sentenced 76.8 percent. Also, the rate where the judges sent whites who preyed on their fellow whites at a lower rate of only 68.5 percent. This is glaring proof of racial discrimination. In addition, the colored judges sentenced 72.9 percent of the colored offenders whereas the white judges jailed 74.2 percent of the colored offenders. This means that the white judges are racially biased against the colored offenders. To reemphasize, both the colored judges and the white judges gave harsh punishment to the colored offenders. Also, colored offenders were seven percent higher than the white offenders (Sphohn, 1990). Stith and Cabranes's prescription for federal sentencing calls for judges to sentence based on their intuitive insights. To the extent that there are constraints on those judgments, they come from "general principles" of sentencing that judges themselves develop in an inductive fashion. Through a common-law process, judges might refine, explain, or reconsider those principles.(72) Ultimately, a set of rules might codify some of those judicial principles. But the heart of sentencing, the authors say, lies in the individual case. It is very difficult for anyone who does not know the particular case in all its uniqueness to articulate or to understand the justice of the sentence. The journal article entitled Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts stated that "If most critical sentencing choices are indeed to take place at the level of the individual case, with few constraining legal rules, perhaps we should ask why it is judges who should make sentencing judgments in the first place. Judges, we tell ourselves, have the power to interpret and enforce the law. In the common-law tradition, judges may add to an existing set of principles. But that common-law tradition is thought to work incrementally or interstitially--common-law judges either build slowly on existing law or operate where statutes or other sources of law do not set a boundary.(73) Moreover, the amount of unbounded territory in which a common-law judge may roam has been shrinking steadily in the United States as the amount of statutory law increases.(74) In an age of statutes, judges must routinely fit their common-law judgment within a framework of rules that other institutions create. But none of these forms of judging places as much trust in the individual judge as do Stith and Cabranes. It is hard to justify an expanded common-law autonomy for judges at sentencing when that autonomy is compromised everywhere else." (Wright, 1999, p. 1355) The above quote shows that judges make the mind -wrenching decisions and sentencing based on laws that are made by the elected lawmakers of the land. In a related case "Tthe courts were called to deliver sentence on the sort of crime that ought never happen. A five-year-old child had been sexually abused. Her abuser had been convicted. There was no doubt in the courtroom about his guilt, that much had been determined earlier. The judge could have insisted on 14 years, yet just two years prison time was handed down. And the second year is suspended. Alone, such leniency is deeply troubling. The precise nature of the attack was detailed in court and is simply horrific. It is true that Irish courts have heard worse, but let us not become desensitised to real evil merely because much worse is on record. The judge's logic is inexplicable. For just how many minutes are paedophiles entitled to abuse their victims before the usual rigour of the law applies The precise nature of the attack was detailed in court and is simply horrific. It is true that Irish courts have heard worse, but let us not become desensitised to real evil merely because much worse is on record. The judge's logic is inexplicable. For just how many minutes are paedophiles entitled to abuse their victims before the usual rigour of the law applies" ("Grave Dangers of Lenient Sentencing," 2007) The above quote shows a real life case where the judge has to make a decision on a rape case of a minor child. The child has to bare all as she tearfully shows to the audience how her young innocence was taken advantage of. The victim cries for justice. The question here is what will be the judge's decision be if: a) the judge is colored and the offender is colored, b) the judge is colored and the offender is white, c) the judge is white and the offender is colored and, d) the judge is white and the offender is white. We can also complicate the situation by adding another crime scene where offender is white and the victim is African American minor. CONCLUSION: Based on the above findings, there are researches that say that both colored judges and white judges give the same or similar harsh and lenient sentences to either white or colored offenders. However, more researches point to the fact that the colored judges are more lenient to the offenders than the white judges. Also, many of the researches above show that white judges gavel down harsher sentences to the colored offenders as compared to the sentences received by the white offenders that have committed the same offences. Thus, this research shows that the Hypothesis (alternate) stating that Race affects Sentencing within the US Criminal Justice System is correct. REFERENCES: Feagin, J. R., Vera, H., & Batur, P. (2001). White Racism : The Basics /. New York: Routledge. Grave Dangers of Lenient Sentencing. (2007, June 21). The Daily Mail (London, England), p. 14. Lanni, A. (1999). Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Again). Yale Law Journal, 108(7), 1775-1803. Spohn, C. (1990). The Sentencing Decisions of Black and White Judges: Expected and Unexpected Similarities. Law & Society Review, 24(5), 1197-1216. Wright, R. F. (1999). Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Yale Law Journal, 108(6), 1355. Read More