SOC 100 Benedictine University Disproportionate Minority Contact Paper

User Generated

o2356912

Humanities

Soc 100

Benedictine University

SOC

Description

Principles of Sociology

A one-page summary of the reading, concluding with two or three questions or issues that struck you as particularly significant. Your summary should include the following components:

· Very Brief summary/synopsis of chapter

· Analysis/Evaluation/Reaction:

-What did you find interesting in the chapter?

-How did the chapter inform you about our society? Does the chapter material support or challenge your beliefs?

· Remaining questions: 2-3 questions you have about reading or what you would like to know

Single spaced, times new roman 12 font

Attached is the reading

Unformatted Attachment Preview

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT How Race/Ethnicity Impacts the Juvenile Justice System PAUL KETCHUM, B. MITCHELL PECK, AND PATRICK POLASEK Introduction he most visible role of the justice system is to dispense sanctions against those who break certain rules of society. In a truly impartial system, sanctions would be meted out based only upon the rate and severity of breaking those codified rules. This chapter will critically examine how race impacts the juvenile justice system through an examination of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), the term used to describe minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system began with the Progressive movement at the turn of the twentieth century. The Progressives envisioned a country were all Americans were to enter the ranks of the middle class. Everyone was to respect private property, send their children to school, and give up whatever vices that they might have brought with them as they immigrated, so that they might become hard-working and law-abiding. The juvenile courts along with schools and other governmental agencies were used to Americanize, assimilate, and acculturate immigrants (Feld 1999). Giving the state the right and responsibility to substitute its own control over children for that of the natural parents, when the latter appeared unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities or when the child posed a problem for the community, proved a powerful tool for imposing assimilation. In essence, the legal concept of parens patriae provided the formal justification to intervene in the lives of immigrants and the poor. It was a tool to control “other people’s children,” a theme continued by the juvenile courts today. The U.S. has attempted to appear to be racially neutral on crime while Black, Hispanic, and other racial/ethnic minorities are socially, politically, and economically emasculated by a criminal and juvenile justice system, resulting in largely disenfranchised communities. While minority youth have always been overrepresented in the juvenile and criminal justice system, in our modern era of purported color-blindness, we have achieved a level of inequality that would make any old-fashioned overt racist proud. An overwhelming amount of research shows that minority youth are overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile justice system, from initial police contact to incarceration (Snyder and Sickmund 2006; Feld 1999; Kempf Leonard, Pope, and Feyerherm 1995) and that this overrepresentation continues into the criminal court system. Black males face roughly a 30% likelihood of incarceration in their lives (Petit and Western 2004; Bonczar and Beck 1997). On any given day, about one third of Black males in their twenties were under official criminal justice supervision (Mauer 1999). Despite consistently making up less than 15% of the overall population, Blacks have grown from 29% of the prison population in 1950 to about 50% of the prison population (Russell 1998), ironically at a time of purported growing racial equality. By 1978 the arrest rate for Blacks had grown to almost 100 arrests for every 1,000 Blacks (Mauer 1999). At the same time, the arrest rate for Whites was 35 arrests per 1,000 Whites, or about two-thirds less. Juvenile rates are almost as lopsided (Mauer 1999). In 1995, Blacks composed only 15% of the overall juvenile population but 34% of all youth in the juvenile justice system including 26% of juvenile arrests, 32% of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41% of the juveniles detained, 46% of the T 1 juveniles in correctional facilities, and 52% of the juveniles transferred to adult court (Mauer 1999). During this period, Whites made up 80% of the total juvenile population but only 63% of those in the juvenile justice system (Walker, Spohn, and DeLone 2000). That minority youths, most notably Black youths, are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system is beyond dispute. The data overwhelmingly show Black youths in the juvenile justice system in numbers well beyond proportional representation. According to Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions (OJJDP) Juvenile Court Records, Black youth, compared to other racial groups are • • • • • • • • 4–8 times more likely to be arrested for an indexed violent crime 2–4 times more likely to be arrested for a property crime involved in 28% of delinquency cases but result in 35% of detained cases involved in 22% of drug cases but 37% of detained drug cases Delinquency cases involving Black juveniles were more likely to be petitioned than were cases involving White youth or youth of other races 78% of drug cases involving Black youth were petitioned compared to 57% for other non-Whites and 56% for Whites (including Hispanics) more likely than other groups to have their case waived to criminal court/certified as an adult more likely to be placed in out-of-home placement than other groups (Snyder and Sigmund 1999) Many theories have tried to explain this significant overrepresentation of minority youth. While all have added to the body of knowledge, the two most prominent are those explaining DMC as the result of Differential Involvement and those alternatively explaining DMC as the result of Differential Treatment. Differential Involvement and Differential Treatment Differential Involvement Differential Involvement contends that minority overrepresentation at any level in the justice system is due to minorities committing more crimes. Differential involvement in offending is a result of individual traits or choices either 1) independent of social problems or 2) attributable as a result of social problems. D’Sousa (1995) aligns himself with the first possibility when he states that those who are especially cautious of young Black men are simply employing rational discrimination based on prudent statistics that use racial or ethnic identity combined with gender, demeanor, and other factors to exclude interaction with young Black men when possible because it is “known” that these individuals commit more crimes, especially violent and drug-related crimes. A number of scholars have suggested that juveniles of color offend at higher rates than do other individuals, simply by choice (D’Sousa 1995; Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Wilbanks 1986; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985). Overrepresentation in the justice system is perceived as fallacy from this view, as observed inequities in the justice system reflect the realities of which individuals actually offend rather than focusing on social problems that lead certain groups to be more or less likely to commit a crime. This concept assumes that each individual a) has the ability to choose whether or not to commit a crime and b) that social forces take a back seat to individual choice. Though this view lacks rigorous empirical support, we include it here as it stubbornly retains public support. There is an alternative view of differential involvement that suggests that higher levels of offending from the young living in poor, minority neighborhoods are rooted in environmental factors (Huizinga, Thornberry, Knight, and Lovegrove 2007; Martinez 2002; Anderson 1999). This perspective suggests that issues such as poverty, disrupted home-life, relative disadvantage, limited economic and educational opportunity, 2 disenfranchisement, and limited community policing are among those factors that influence both the prevalent types of crime as well as the crime rate. From this view, minorities’ differential involvement in crime is due to environmental factors encouraging or otherwise rewarding criminal behavior. For instance, the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (Damphousse, Davis, and Charish 2004) found that Black and Hispanic youths committed more crime than did White youth; however, once environmental conditions were controlled for, the difference disappeared. Differential involvement is ideologically grounded in blame assigned to the offender, either fully (individual choice) or partially (rooted in social problems) based on arrest and conviction rates. It further assumes that arrest and conviction rates of minorities as compared to Whites are reflective of actual rates of commission of delinquent and criminal acts. If minorities actually commit delinquent and criminal acts at rates well above those of Whites, the only rational policy course is to address how to limit minorities’ involvement in delinquent and criminal acts. The 2003 juvenile arrest records and 2000 juvenile court records from OJJDP clearly show significant overrepresentation of Black male youths in almost every category of juvenile court records, including arrests. However, the discrepancy in arrest and conviction rates for Blacks and Whites cannot be easily explained as different rates of offending between White and Black juveniles (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). For example, Wordes and Bynum (1995) found in their study of the juvenile justice system in Michigan, both through official police records and interviews with officers, that race or race-related factors, such as being in the wrong neighborhood or hanging out on the street, heavily contributed to a decision by officers to initiate contact. Many of the officers interviewed also noted that boys need a father figure in their lives and that single mothers (statistically a more common living situation for Blacks) cannot adequately control delinquent behavior. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Kempf Leonard and Sontheimer (1995) discovered that “… offense-related, systemrelated, and social history factors are accorded different weight depending on race” (p. 120). Differential Treatment Differential Involvement, be it dependent on or independent of social problems, appears to play a role in DMC, but doesn’t fully explain the issue. Differential Treatment suggests that minorities receive disproportionate punishment for offending. Potential causes of differential treatment resulting in DMC range from indirect racial effect to overt racism. Indirect racial effect could be caused by juvenile justice officials focusing on factors that are strongly correlated to race, such as SES, demeanor, family structure, and school status, resulting in racialized outcomes (Pope and Snyder 2003; Pope and Feyerhern 1990). Along these lines, Wordes and Bynum (1995) found that police officers sometimes formed decisions based on expectations tinged with racial/ethnic stereotypes. Bridges and Steen (1998) found the same of court officials. In fact, a number of studies have found that while the type of current offense and prior record explain much of the observed minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system, these do not explain all of the racial differences (Fagan et al. 1987; Krisberg et al. 1987; McCarthy and Smith 1986). Feld (1999) argues that “A system of justice in which the most powerful explanatory legal variables—present offense and prior record—account for only about 25% of the variance in sentencing remains a highly discretionary and perhaps discriminatory one” (p. 94). Differing rates of official placement of juvenile offenders itself creates de facto segregation as 1) Latinos are more likely to be placed in public facilities, 2) Blacks and Latinos are more often placed in private residential care, and 3) White offenders are most likely to be placed in privately run group homes and private drug and alcohol treatment centers (Kempf Leonard and Sontheimer 1995). Another cause of differential treatment is what Feld (1999) refers to as “justice by geography.” Feld (1999) noted that “… individualized discretion is often synonymous with racial disparities in sentencing juveniles” (p. 72). Urban and, to a lesser degree, suburban courts tend to be more formalized in structure, allowing less judicial discretion. According to Feld, this is due to the larger caseloads found in urban courts, which, in turn, forces reliance upon standardized bureaucratic measures (1999). 3 By any measurement, minorities are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. This overrepresentation has remained fairly constant in the last decade as 1993 figures from the FBI show that African Americans, though only 12% of the general population (about 15% of the juvenile population), accounted for 27% of all juvenile arrests, 49% of juvenile arrests for violent crime, and 26% of arrests for property crime (Joseph 1995). Significantly, the further they move through the system, the greater the disproportionate representation (Kempf Leonard et al. 1995). At the juvenile court level, in 1993, about 20% of all youths referred to juvenile court were detained. Of that 20%, however, judges detained about 18% of White juveniles and 26% of Black juveniles (Feld 1999). Juvenile courts are not immune from racial bias. In fact, due to the amplification effect (Walker et al. 2000; Feld 1999; Kempf Leonard et al. 1995), because minority youth are more likely to be arrested in the first place and a prior record is a major determining factor for further arrests, at each stage (initial contact, juvenile court, detention, criminal court, and incarceration) the percentage of minority youth climbs as one moves through the system (Hendricks and Byers 2000). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions (OJJDP) has concluded that “… institutional bias or racism occurs from the initial contact the juvenile makes with law enforcement up through the juvenile court system itself” (Lardiero 1997). Other evidence similarly suggests that race is frequently a factor at different points throughout the juvenile justice system. Bishop and Frazier (1996), using both analysis of case histories and interviews with officials at all levels of the juvenile justice system, conclude that race is the dominant factor at every stage of processing, but most important at the initial arrest stage. Free (1996) found that “African Americans were less likely than Whites to be released by the police.” Both the case history analysis and the interviews support the idea that race is more of a determining factor for the police than any other part of the juvenile system, likely due to a lack of public oversight as officers have significant latitude in deciding to commit to initial contact and then whether or not to make the contact official, such as a citation or arrest (Kempf Leonard et al. 1995). The practice of racial profiling also makes African American youth more susceptible to initial contact (Jackson and Pabon 2000). The concepts of differential treatment and differential involvement collide most publicly with the issue of racial profiling. Key to the concept of mistrust of the justice system for many minorities is the concept of racial profiling or the “out-of-place” doctrine. Kathryn Russell (1998) points out that the “out-of-place” doctrine, which a number of courts have upheld as legal, gives police a legal justification for stopping and questioning Blacks when they are in a predominantly White neighborhood. Studies indicate that Black males are stopped for questioning by the police at a rate much higher than any other racial or ethnic group. According to Russell, this creates a problem in that Black males are stopped and questioned at a rate much higher than the level of Black involvement in crime. Of course racial targeting for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency of the criminal justice system (racial profiling) has effects upon the minority community well beyond the scope of the justice system. For instance Coates (2007) explains: How racial non-elites respond to racial profiling may be the difference between life and death. In cities across the nation, increased levels of incarceration, fear, and even death have resulted as these nonelites have found their opportunities for freedom and security impaired … repeated episodes of racial intimidation, profiling, and discrimination may produce increased levels of stress, hypertension, and other related health conditions. Racial profiling targets minorities and damages their lives, yet many Whites see it as, at worst, a necessary evil, while programs that target the enhancement of Black lives are seen negatively by Whites (Bobo and Kluegel 1993). There is evidence that suggests that many minority youth and their parents may not fully understand their options in juvenile court, or trust those representing their interests (Joseph 1995; Kempf Leonard et al. 1995). This may be related to research that shows that Blacks are significantly more likely to be represented by public defenders, rather than private attorneys, which may, in turn, play a role in the overrepresentation of minority youth in detention facilities (Hendricks and Byers 2000). However, a lack of private attorneys does not explain 4 overrepresentation of minority juveniles at other stages of the juvenile justice system, such as initial police contact or arrest. Within the juvenile justice continuum beginning with initial police contact at the least severe end of the juvenile justice system and ending with juvenile waivers (moving juvenile cases to criminal court to be tried as an adult) as the most severe end of the juvenile justice continuum, there is a constant growth in overrepresentation of Black youths, with the greatest level of disproportional representation in juvenile waivers to criminal court (Kempf Leonard et al. 1995). Interestingly, there is no rational evidence to support the disparities in sentencing or in waivers between minority and White offenders (Hendricks and Byers 2000; Free 1996; Joseph 1995; Kempf Leonard et al. 1995). Bridges, Conley, Engen, and Price-Spratlen (1995) found, during their interviews with juvenile court judges, a tendency for judges to decide that it was in the best interest of many minority youths to place them in a detention facility, as it was preferable to their home life, though they did not extend this same decision to White (nonHispanic) youths (Kempf Leonard et al. 1995). The specter of single-parent families, or more specifically of Black women raising children alone, appears to play a significant role in the juvenile justice decision-making process. The problem with the stereotypes and assumptions, particularly those involving parental ability and involvement, is that in an overworked system, shortcuts, in the form of decisions made using stereotypes, may be used (Feld 1999; Singer 1996). Few juvenile court judges believe racial disparities in confinement to be racially based (Bridges and Steen 1998). Instead, most judges (Bridges and Steen 1998; Secret and Johnson 1997; Kempf Leonard et al. 1995) attributed the disparities to Blacks and other minorities as “… substantial ethnic and racial differences in criminal behavior” (Institutionalized Discrimination) or the fact that youths of wealthier families have access to nonadjudicated facilities that the poor do not (Contextual Discrimination). Essentially, judges may use extralegal characteristics like race to create “a mental map of the accused person’s underlying character” (Secret and Johnson 1997) and to predict his/her future behavior. Alternatively, the harsher treatment of African American and Hispanic juveniles might reflect both class and race biases on the part of juvenile court judges (Secret and Johnson 1997). In other words, “the individual’s economic and social class and the color of his skin … determine his relationship to the legal system” (Feld 1999). Bridges and Steen’s (1998) study of probation officers examined 233 narrative reports written by juvenile probation officers in three different counties in the state of Washington in 1990 and 1991. Each narrative included the probation officer’s description of the crime and an assessment of the factors that motivated the crime, as well as an evaluation of the youth’s background assessment of his or her likelihood of recidivism. The probation officers “… tended to attribute crimes committed by Whites to negative environmental factors (poor school performance, delinquent peers, dysfunctional family, use of drugs or alcohol) … [yet] … they tended to attribute crimes committed by Black youths to negative personality traits and ‘bad attitudes’ (refusal to admit guilt, lack of remorse, failure to take offense seriously, lack of cooperation with court officials). They also found probation officers judged Black youth to have a significantly higher risk of reoffending than White youth” (p. 174). In this post–Civil Rights era, we are used to rules and laws designed to correct racial inequities. Further, we have largely come to believe that either measures used at the institutional level can correct lingering racism, or that racism is so institutionalized that it can never be overcome. Theories supporting differential involvement either 1) rest upon the absurd premise that crime and delinquency are purely a result of “free will” and that minority overrepresentation is due to the failings of minority groups, either through learned attitudes or genetic predisposition or 2) that issues of class and only coincidentally of race are the cause of minority overrepresentation in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, essentially ruling out the influence or even existence of subtle discrimination. Current theories of differential treatment similarly fall short, as they also tend to focus on institutional factors. While the existing literature has added much to our understanding of how race and ethnicity impact the juvenile justice system, each perspective tends to assign primary responsibility for DMC to a particular group; either the offenders, or those who make decisions at each contact point within the juvenile justice system. From a theoretical standpoint this debate is of limited use as the end result is likely more reflective of ideological perspective. From a policy perspective, the debate is equally frustrating as those who attempt to implement policies to minimize DMC are faced with focusing policy on decision makers or offenders. As Piquero (2008) 5 notes, understanding the degree to which differential offending or differential processing contribute to DMC doesn’t matter as much as how they combine to create minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. The Larger Picture: Minority Overrepresentation and the Racialized Social System Almost forgotten in the debate between differential treatment and differential involvement in the juvenile justice system is the larger problem illustrated by any statistically significant minority overrepresentation. If, as some have suggested, we live in a post-racial society, then race should never be statistically relevant. In other words, if 12% of a given population is Black, then we would expect, in a post-racial society, that 12% of the doctors, lawyers, prisoners, janitors, teachers, criminals, accountants, out-of-work, wealthy, poor, etc. would be Black. The very existence of minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system means that the scales and blindfold of Lady Justice don’t exist, leaving only the sword to punish “others” or in the case of juvenile court, “other peoples’ children.” Researchers of racial and ethnic relations recognize how firmly race is embedded in the structural foundations of American society (Bonilla-Silva 2001, 2003; Feagin 2006; Omi and Winant 1994). In the past 20 years, more race scholars have come to recognize that while overt racial prejudice continues to manifest itself in our society, contemporary forms of racial discrimination are often more subtle, covert, and non-apparent. According to these scholars, in a post–Civil Rights era that is governed by strict laws and regulations—specifically aimed at deterring overt racial discrimination—new forms of racism have emerged that allow actors to explain existing racial inequality as the result of nonracial dynamics. Scholars have labeled these forms of discrimination as laissez-faire racism (Bobo and Kluegal 1993), colorblind racism (Bonilla-Silva 2003), symbolic racism (Henry and Sears 2002), and aversive racism (Sears and Henry 2003). We draw here primarily on the works of Joe Feagin’s Systemic Racism and White Racial Frame theories and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s Racialized Social System framework. Racialized social system explains racism as a global phenomenon that has impacted all societies that came into contact with colonizing European Whites (Bonilla-Silva 2001). The racialization of the world system is based on social, economic, political, and psychological relations of domination and subordination between social groups defined as superior “races” and groups defined as inferior “races” (Omi and Winant 1994; Bonilla-Silva 2001; see also Feagin 2006). Bonilla-Silva (2001) argues that the racialization of the world created “racialized social systems” where the dominant race has developed various practices and mechanisms to maintain its social standing and subjected racial groups have struggled to attempt to change their position in the social order. Racism has a material or structural foundation; that is, “racial” matters in societies reflect the interests of the parties in conflict. Thus, Bonilla-Silva (2001, 2006) argues that while prejudice in all its variants can be regarded as an expression of dominant group interests, effective racial control benefits not from a plurality of highly racialized individuals in society, but from the passive and tacit support of the racial order by most members of the dominant race—in the case of U.S., Whites. Because racialized social systems work to preserve White privilege, progressive attempts to create a more balanced and egalitarian society are often ideal in theory, yet failures in practice. For example, although there is debate surrounding the notion that schools and educators are necessarily privileged sites or actors for progressive social change, in truth, they usually function, despite contradictions, to reproduce the racialized social system (Althusser 1977; see also Lewis 2003). A particularly important concept in the Racialized Social System theory is Bonilla-Silva’s (2006:104) “White habitus,” which he defines as “a racialized, uninterrupted socialization process that conditions and creates Whites’ racial taste, perceptions, feelings, and emotions and their views on racial matters.” According to Bonilla-Silva, the White habitus not only promotes strong group ties (White solidarity), but it also creates, promotes, and 6 maintains negative views about non-Whites. Although Bonilla-Silva discusses White habitus in the context of Whites’ social relationship with Blacks (e.g., neighborhood interaction, interracial friendship or relationship), one could think about the exclusive space that is dominated by White males in the U.S. court system that promote strong group ties (i.e., White male solidarity). Consequently, this White (male) habitus creates, promotes, and maintains negative views about non-Whites. In his book, Racist America: Roots, Realities, and Future Reparations, Feagin (2000, 2010; see also Feagin 2005) develops a conceptual framework that explains the current conditions of Blacks in the United States—a theory he refers to as systemic racism. Systemic racism emphasizes the structural, institutional, and systemic elements present in a racialized and oppressive system. In essence, Feagin (2000) argues that the present state of Blacks and other non-Whites in the United States is a result of a system that has deep historical roots in preserving White privilege through the exploitation and discrimination of non-Whites. Systemic racism, according to Feagin (2000:16) includes “a diverse assortment of racist practices; the unjustly gained economic and political power of Whites; the continuing resource inequalities; and the White-racist ideologies, attitudes, and institutions created to preserve White advantages and power.” The adverse effects of systemic racism manifest themselves not only in Blacks’ everyday lives and Whites’ group identity, but it is also ever changing so that the structural and institutional vestiges of racial discrimination against non-Whites continue to evolve, and therefore persist, with society. Thus, major institutions such as the criminal justice system continue to hold on to racial stereotypes and engage in racial practices that negatively impact the lives of racial minorities. Recently, Feagin (2009, 2010) has introduced his concept of the “White racial frame” as a way to help us understand not only why but also how it is that many folks, especially White Americans, are unable to fully understand the past or present racially oppressive system in which we live. According to Feagin (2010:25), most White Americans have adopted a racial frame that “interprets and defends White privileges and advantaged conditions as meritorious and accents White virtues as well as the alleged inferiority and deficiencies of those people of color who are oppressed.” Such allegiance to this racial frame creates a worldview that allows Whites, and minorities who adopt such a view, to justify Whites’ positions in society as “superior” to other “inferior” groups. Minorities, therefore, are deserving of their inferior place in society. Further, Feagin notes that once embedded in the institutions and minds of folks in society, the “White racial frame” becomes a “concrete force” in that society that works to help reinforce and maintain racial stereotypes, narratives, images, emotions, and even discrimination. Viewed through the lens of racialized social systems theory, DMC emerges as an expected outcome for a society where prejudice is regarded as an expression of dominant group interests, supported by most members of the dominant race. Differential treatment and differential involvement, in turn, become two sides of the same coin, maintaining the racial status quo through the marginalization of minority children. Simply put, a juvenile justice system in which Whites are significantly underrepresented serves to reinforce Whites’ narratives of moral superiority and minority inferiority. Maintaining the facade of White moral superiority is achieved from tacit, subtle stacking of the deck through 1) marginalizing minorities and therefore limiting sources of traditional success and 2) hypervigilance for minority failure to “toe the line,” as established by the dominant White society. DMC in Oklahoma The authors of this chapter conducted research for the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA), a brief overview of which will be used here to illustrate the different ways in which bias creates DMC. The OJA study measured official crime data from police and courts, self-report data from juveniles from urban, suburban and rural schools, and coded in-depth interviews with juvenile justice professionals from Oklahoma. Police data showed non-Whites (with the exception of Asians) as significantly more likely to be stopped, arrested, prosecuted than Whites. For example, the odds of arrest versus being cited, as compared to Whites, show that Black youth 7 are 2.06 times more likely to be arrested, Native American youth 2.57 time, and “Other/Don’t Know” (which is mostly made up of Latino’s) 1.84 times as likely as White youth to be arrested. However, self-report data showed that non-White youth and White youth commit crime at rates with no statistically significant difference, yet were 5.33 times more likely to be “Detained, questioned, handcuffed” by police and 9 times as likely as Whites to be transported by police to a detention center. The self-report data also confirmed the increased likelihood of nonWhites to be arrested rather than cited by police. In an effort to understand causes for this discrepancy, the authors conducted 176 interviews of police officers, juvenile court lawyers and judges and juvenile probation officers. Almost of the participants subscribed to stereotypes of non-White families having significantly different value systems and involvement as parents, neither of which are supported by research. Racial isolation increased this tendency as those who live and/or were raised in White, segregated communities, tended to be stronger in their belief in racial/ethnic family differences. Works Cited Anderson, Elija. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton. Bishop, Donna and Charles Frazier. 1996. “Race Effects in Juvenile Justice Decision-Making: Findings of a Statewide Analysis.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 86:392–413. Bobo, Lawrence and James Kluegel. 1993. “Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification Ideology or Racial Attitudes?” American Sociological Review. 58:443–464. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo, and David G. Embrick. 2006. “Black, Honorary White, White: The Future of Race in the United States?” In Mixed Messages: Doing Race in the Color-Blind Era, edited by David L. Brunsma. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and Tyrone Forman. 2000. “I’m Not a Racist But …: Mapping White College Students’ Racial Ideology in the USA.” Discourse and Society. 11:50–85. Bridges, G., D. Conley, R. Engen, and T. Price-Spratlen. 1995. “Racial Disparities in the Confinement of Juveniles: Effects of Crime and Community Social Structure on Punishment.” In Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Edited by Kempf Leonard, K., Pope, C., and Feyerherm, W. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bridges, George and Sara Steen. 1998. “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offending: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review. 65:554–570. Coates, Rodney. 2007. “Covert Racism in the USA and Globally.” In Rethinking the Color Line: Readings in Race and Ethnicity, 3rd ed. Edited by Charles Gallagher. New York: McGraw-Hill. Damphousse, Kelly, Courtney Charish, and Sebastian Davis. 2004. “Race/Ethnicity and Gender Effects on Juvenile System Processing.” Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs. D’Souza, Dinesh. 1995. The End of Racism. New York: Free Press. Fagan, J., E. Piper, and M. Moore. 1987. “Violent Delinquents and Urban Youth.” Criminology. 24:439–471. Feagin, Joe and Karyn McKinney. 2005. The Many Costs of Racism. Lanham, MD. Rowman & Littlefield. Feagin, Joe. 2006. Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Taylor and Francis Group. Feagin, Joe. 2000 and 2010. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge. Feld, Barry. 1999. Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University. Forman, Tyrone. 2004. Color-Blind Racism and Racial Indifference: The Role of Racial Apathy in Facilitating 8 Enduring Inequalities in the Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity. Krysan, Marian and Amanda Lewis ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Free. M. 1996. African Americans and the Criminal Justice System. New York: Garland. Jackson, R. and Pabon, E. 2000. “Race and Treating Other People’s Children as Adults.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 28:507–515. Joseph, J. 1995. Black Youths, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Hendricks, J. and Byers, B. (ed.). 2000. Multicultural Perspectives in Criminal Justice and Criminology (2nd ed.). Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas. Henry, P. and Sears, D. O. 2002. “The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale.” Political Psychology. 23:253–283. Huizinga, David, Terence Thornberry, Kelly Knight, and Peter Lovegrove. 2007. “Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System: A Study of Differential Minority Arrest/Referral to Court in Three Cities.” OJJDP Document No. 219743. Kempf Leonard, Kimberly and Henry Sontheimer. 1995. “Racial Disparities in the Confinement of Juveniles: Effects of Crime and Community Social Structure on Punishment.” In Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Edited by Kempf Leonard, K., Pope, C., and Feyerherm, W. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kempf Leonard, K., Pope, C., and Feyerherm, W. (ed.). 1995. Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lardiero, C. 1997. “Of Disproportionate Minority Confinement.” Corrections Today. 59:14–15. Martinez, Ramiro Jr. 2002. Latino Homicide: Immigration, Violence, and Community. New York: Routledge. McCarthy, Belinda R. and Brent L. Smith. 1986. “The Conceptualization of Discrimination in the Juvenile Justice Process: The Impact of Administrative Factors and Screening Decisions on Juvenile Court Dispositions.” Criminology, Vol. 24, Issue 1, February 1986, 41–64. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960’s to the 1990’s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Picca, L.H. and Feagin, J. P. 2007. Two-Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage. New York: Routledge. Piquero, Alex R. 2008. “Disproportionate Minority Contact: The Future of Children.” Juvenile Justice, Vol. 18, No. 2, 59–79, Princeton University. Pope, Carl and Howard Snyder. 2003. “Race as a Factor in Juvenile Arrests.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Pope, Carl and William Feyerherm. 1990 (part 1 and part 2). “Minority Status and Juvenile Justice Processing: An Assessment of the Research Literature.” Criminal Justice Abstracts. 22:327–335 (part 1), 22:527–542 (part 2). Russell, Kathryn. 1998. The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment, and other Macroaggressions. New York: University Press. Sears, D.O. and P. J. Henry. 2003. “The Origins of Symbolic Racism: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 2, 259–275. Secret and Johnson 1997. “The Effect of Race on Juvenile Justice Decision Making in Nebraska: Detention, Adjudication, and Disposition, 1988–1993.” Justice Quarterly. 14:445–478. Snyder, Howard N. and Melisssa Sickmund. 2006. “Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam DeLone. 2000. The Color of Justice. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Wordes, M. and T. S. Bynum. 1995. “Policing Juveniles: Is there Bias Against Youths of Color?” In Minorities in Juvenile Justice, K. Kempf Leonard, C. E. Pope, and W. H. Feyerherm, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 9
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT

Disproportionate Minority Contact
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT

2

Disproportionate Minority Contact
Summary
The justice system has a responsibility of administering sanctions lawbreakers in society.
However, racial profiling of minority communities in American society creates inefficiency the
justice system. Racial profiling in the U.S. juvenile justice system is evidenced by the
overrepresentation of individuals from minority ethnic communities, including Hispanic and
African Americans. The overrepresentation of minority communities in the juvenile justice
system is characterized by high rates of arrests and detention and low release rates. For instance,
most arrests of juveniles in minority communities result in detention. The minority
overrepresentation phenomenon is explained using different theories, including differential
involvement and differential treatment theories.
Differential involvement theory associates minority overrepresentation with their
involvement in more criminal activities than th...


Anonymous
Awesome! Perfect study aid.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags