Sp en ce r G ra nt /P ho to lib ra ry /G et ty Im ag es Learning Objectives • Understand the concepts of “race” and “ethnicity” as social constructs. • Analyze evidence about racial inequality and social class in relation to crime. • Analyze evidence about racial differences in rates of victimization. • Analyze evidence regarding racial inequality and incarceration rates. • Explore how the War on Drugs contributes to racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. • Examine crack cocaine and marijuana law enforcement in context of racial discrimination. • Critically analyze the connections between race and the death penalty. • Examine empirical evidence on the issue of racial profiling. • Examine empirical evidence on the issue of immigration and crime rates. Crime, Race, and Ethnicity 4 coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 91 7/5/13 4:18 PM Section 4.1 Race and the Criminal Justice System CHAPTER 4 In April of 2012, law enforcement in Oklahoma arrested one of the region’s foremost drug kingpins. In the home of the alleged drug kingpin, police seized four pounds of marijuana, $276,000 in cash, and two firearms: a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol. Police believe that the defendant is the “mastermind” (Perez, 2012, p. 1) of a drug-dealing organization that supplies approximately 40% of the marijuana markets in Oklahoma and three nearby states: Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas. The suspect, drug kingpin Darlene Mayes, is a White grandmother with thinning silver hair who appears to be in her 60s or 70s. Thus she has been dubbed the “Granny Drug Kingpin” (Perez, 2012). Studies suggest that when asked to picture a drug dealer, overwhelmingly the American public visualizes a young man of color (Burston, Jones, & Roberson-Sanders, 1995). How- ever, evidence from this chapter will demonstrate that drug use and drug crime spans racial and ethnic groups and that all racial groups seem to commit drug crime in similar rates. Whether broaching issues of drug crime, or any other type of crime, issues of per- ception, race, and criminality are central in the study of criminology. 4.1 Race and the Criminal Justice System The American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts people of color, and this disproportionate impact by race is often dramatic and consistent at nearly every level of the system. Research demonstrates that members of poor, disenfranchised groups receive harsher treatment in all phases of the criminal justice system: They are more likely to be stopped, investigated, arrested, charged, put on trial, found guilty, and sent to prison (Tonry, 2011). The disproportionate involvement in the system is cumula- tive. Police are more likely to arrest someone who has a prior record, prosecutors are more likely to charge someone who has previously been arrested or spent time in jail. A judge is more likely to convict and incarcerate a defendant rather than offer probation to some- one who has .

1. Sp
en
ce
r
G
ra
nt
/P
ho
to
lib
ra
ry
/G
et
ty
Im
ag
es
Learning Objectives
• Understand the concepts of “race” and “ethnicity” as social

2. constructs.
• Analyze evidence about racial inequality and social class in
relation to crime.
• Analyze evidence about racial differences in rates of
victimization.
• Analyze evidence regarding racial inequality and incarceration
rates.
• Explore how the War on Drugs contributes to racial
discrimination in the criminal justice system.
• Examine crack cocaine and marijuana law enforcement in
context of racial discrimination.
• Critically analyze the connections between race and the death
penalty.
• Examine empirical evidence on the issue of racial profiling.
• Examine empirical evidence on the issue of immigration and
crime rates.
Crime, Race, and Ethnicity
4
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 91 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.1 Race and the Criminal Justice System CHAPTER 4
In April of 2012, law enforcement in Oklahoma arrested one of

3. the region’s foremost drug kingpins. In the home of the alleged
drug kingpin, police seized four pounds of marijuana, $276,000
in cash, and two firearms: a revolver and a semiautomatic
pistol.
Police believe that the defendant is the “mastermind” (Perez,
2012, p. 1) of a drug-dealing
organization that supplies approximately 40% of the marijuana
markets in Oklahoma and
three nearby states: Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas. The
suspect, drug kingpin Darlene
Mayes, is a White grandmother with thinning silver hair who
appears to be in her 60s or
70s. Thus she has been dubbed the “Granny Drug Kingpin”
(Perez, 2012).
Studies suggest that when asked to picture a drug dealer,
overwhelmingly the American
public visualizes a young man of color (Burston, Jones, &
Roberson-Sanders, 1995). How-
ever, evidence from this chapter will demonstrate that drug use
and drug crime spans
racial and ethnic groups and that all racial groups seem to
commit drug crime in similar
rates. Whether broaching issues of drug crime, or any other type
of crime, issues of per-
ception, race, and criminality are central in the study of
criminology.
4.1 Race and the Criminal Justice System
The American criminal justice system disproportionately
impacts people of color, and this disproportionate impact by
race is often dramatic and consistent at nearly every level of the
system. Research demonstrates that members of poor,
disenfranchised
groups receive harsher treatment in all phases of the criminal

4. justice system: They are
more likely to be stopped, investigated, arrested, charged, put
on trial, found guilty, and
sent to prison (Tonry, 2011). The disproportionate involvement
in the system is cumula-
tive. Police are more likely to arrest someone who has a prior
record, prosecutors are more
likely to charge someone who has previously been arrested or
spent time in jail. A judge
is more likely to convict and incarcerate a defendant rather than
offer probation to some-
one who has previously spent time behind bars (Schnake, Jones,
& Brooker, 2010). Thus,
racial disparities in crime and incarceration rates are critically
important in the study of
contemporary criminology.
Race and Ethnicity Defined
From the perspective of a social scientist, race and ethnicity are
social constructs. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 1, a social construct is an entity in society
that is not fixed, rather its
meaning is continually defined and redefined by evolving norms
and values in society.
From this perspective, race refers to a group of individuals who
are distinguished by some
perceived common physical characteristics. These physical
characteristics are often broad
and overlapping but also perceived as exclusive and distinct. In
contrast, ethnicity refers
to a group of individuals who share common cultural beliefs,
norms, values, and prac-
tices. These common cultural practices may include family
customs, religious practices,
and traditions centered on food, music, and art.

5. Understanding race and ethnicity as social constructs
acknowledges that the lived history
of individuals and groups of various origins changes over time.
Similarly, social attitudes
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 92 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.1 Race and the Criminal Justice System CHAPTER 4
and perceptions about race and ethnicity change over time. And
finally, patterns of migra-
tion, immigration, and reproduction continually reshape racial
and ethnic groups, in
America in particular.
In his book The American Kaleidoscope, Lawrence Fuchs
(1990) uses the metaphor of a kalei-
doscope to vividly illustrate how racial and ethnic patterns in
the United States evolve
over time. Several popular metaphors and symbols have been
used to represent the rela-
tively young and unique patterns of racial and ethnic
assimilation and acculturation in
America. Metaphors such as the
“melting pot” or “salad bowl”
suggest that different groups
combine and mix in American
society to meld together to form
something unique while also
retaining some of their original
components.

6. The kaleidoscope metaphor
suggests that the size and shape
of different racial and ethnic
groups evolve dynamically over
time. The size, shape, and col-
ors of different sections meld
together and are reshaped, and
new colors are formed. While a
powerful metaphor, all of these
symbols for racial and ethnic
evolution in America likely
ignore the history of conflict and oppression intertwined with
issues of race and ethnicity.
Moreover, these metaphors also seem to disregard that social-
structural marginality and
stratification continue to connect with issues of race and
ethnicity in contemporary America.
Race and Socioeconomic Status
In the United States, poverty disproportionately impacts people
and communities of color.
Similarly, people of color are overrepresented among the lower
social classes (Bishaw,
2011). Concentrated poverty is associated with higher crime
rates, underperforming public
schools, poor housing and health conditions, and fewer job
opportunities (Bishaw, 2011).
According to the 2010 Census, non-Hispanic Whites constitute
72.4% of the U.S. popula-
tion and 9.9% of those living in poverty. In contrast, African
Americans represent 12.6% of
the U.S. general population, but 27.4% of those living in
poverty. Hispanics now represent
16.3% of the U.S. general population but 26.6% of individuals

7. living below the poverty
line (DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., & Smith, J., 2011; United
States Census Bureau, 2011).
People of color are clearly overrepresented among those living
in poverty, and they are
also overrepresented among those impacted by the criminal
justice system.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Metaphors like melting pot, salad bowl, or kaleidoscope are
used
to describe the diversity of Americans.
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 93 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.2 Crime Rates and Race CHAPTER 4
4.2 Crime Rates and Race
The research demonstrates that rates of crime perpetration and
crime victimization do not affect all groups in society equally.
In other words, crime tends to have a disproportionate impact
on poor communities and communities of color. Crimi-
nologists have consistently found that most crime is intraracial;
that is, people dispropor-
tionately commit crimes against people of their own race. For
example, Native American
populations in the United States suffer from high levels of
poverty and social structural
marginality. In part as a result, Native Americans as a group are
nearly twice as likely to
be victims of many types of violent crime compared to any
other racial or ethnic group in

8. the United States. Moreover, while there is limited data
available to researchers, it seems
likely that Native Americans also have comparatively high rates
of criminal offending
(Tibbetts, 2012).
Race, socioeconomic status, and crime rates cluster among other
racial and ethnic groups
as well. The research suggests that along with Native
Americans, African Americans tend
to have higher rates of crime perpetration, especially for violent
offenses. Whites and
Asian Americans tend to commit lower rates of both property
and violent crime. However,
given the size of the White population in the United States,
most people arrested in the
United States are White. For example, in 2009, 69% of all
people arrested nationwide were
White, compared to 28% African American
(http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/
index.html). It is important to note that rates of crime
perpetration are often measured by
arrests. As discussed in Chapter 1, arrest rates as a measure of
crime are reasonably accu-
rate but also have a series of shortcomings and thus present an
incomplete picture of the
crime problem in America (Tibbetts, 2012).
Members of racial and ethnic minority groups are also
overrepresented as victims of
crime. In 2010, African Americans had higher rates of violent
crime victimization (20.8 per
1,000 people) than Hispanics (15.6 per 1,000) and Whites (13.6
per 1,000) (Truman, 2011a).
Understanding the complex connections between poverty, race,
and crime is important in

9. order to devise effective public policy to prevent and control
crime.
Incarceration Rates and Race
People of color are overrepresented in the American
correctional system. This section will
examine racial differences in local jails and in state and federal
prisons building from
the most recent data available from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Those data will be
combined with 2010 Census Data to calculate the corresponding
incarceration rates for
Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in the United States.
People of color are incarcerated in jails across America at rates
much higher than their
White counterparts (see Table 4.1). According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (2011),
there were a total of 748,728 inmates in local jails in 2010. Of
these inmates, Whites consti-
tuted 44.3% (331,686 inmates), African Americans made up
37.8% (283,019 inmates), and
Hispanics 15.8% (118,299 inmates). Compared to the
representation of these groups in the
general population, people of color are much more likely to be
incarcerated in local jails.
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 94 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html
Section 4.2 Crime Rates and Race CHAPTER 4

10. Table 4.1: Numbers of inmates in local jails, by characteristic,
midyear 2000 and 2005–2010
Characteristic 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008a 2009a 2010
Total 621,149 747,529 756,819 780,174 785,533 767,434
748,728
Sex
Male 550,162 652,958 666,819 679,654 685,862 673,728
656,360
Female 70,987 94,571 99,000 100,520 99,670 93,706 92,368
Adults 613,534 740,770 759,717 773,341 777,829 760,216
741,168
Male 543,120 646,807 661,164 673,346 678,657 667,039
649,284
Female 70,414 93,963 98,552 99,995 99,172 93,176 91,884
Juvenilesb 7,615 6,759 6,102 6,833 7,703 7,218 7,560
Held as adultsc 6,126 5,750 4,835 5,649 6,410 5,846 5,647
Held as juveniles 1,489 1,009 1,268 1,184 1,294 1,373 1,912
Race/Hispanic origind
White 260,500 331,000 336,500 338,200 333,300 326,400
331,600
Black/African
American

11. 256,300 290,500 295,900 301,700 308,000 300,500 283,200
Hispanic/Latino 94,100 111,900 119,200 125,500 128,500
124,000 118,100
Othere 10,200 13,000 13,500 13,900 14,000 14,800 15,000
Two or more
races
… 1,000 700 800 1,300 1,800 800
Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
…Not collected
a Based on revised data from selected jail jurisdictions for the
number of inmates confined at midyear 2008 and 2009. See
Methodology for a description of revised data.
bJuveniles are persons under the age of 18 at midyear.
cIncludes juveniles who were tried or awaiting trial as adults.
dEstimates are based on reported data adjusted for nonresponse.
eExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Source: United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2011). Jail Inmates at Midyear 2010, Statistical
Tables.
Publication No. NCJ 233431. Washington, D.C.: Minton, T.
African Americans and Hispanic populations are also
dramatically overrepresented in
the American prison system (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). According
to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2012), there were a total of 1,612,395 individuals
incarcerated in prisons in the

12. United States as of December of 2010. These 1.6 million
prisoners are serving time in both
the state and federal prison system, both government-run and
private prison facilities,
both juvenile and adult facilities, and include both male and
female inmates. In December
of 2010, Whites constituted 499,600 inmates, or just under 31%
of all prison inmates. In
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 95 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.2 Crime Rates and Race CHAPTER 4
comparison, there were 588,000 African American inmates that
comprised 36.5% of all
inmates. And Hispanics totaled 345,900 inmates, or 21.4% of all
prison inmates. These
overwhelming racial disparities in the prison system are even
more dramatic when
analyzed by rate.
Table 4.2: Estimated number of sentenced prisoners under state
and federal jurisdiction,
by sex, race, and Hispanic origin, December 31, 2000–2010
Male Female
Year Totala Whiteb Blackb Hispanic Totala Whiteb Blackb
Hispanic
2000 1,237,500 436,500 572,900 206,900 83,700 34,500 37,400
10,000
2001 1,259,500 449,200 585,800 199,700 85,000 36,200 36,400

13. 10,200
2002 1,291,300 436,800 586,700 235,000 89,000 35,400 36,000
15,000
2003 1,316,500 454,300 586,300 251,900 92,800 39,100 35,000
16,200
2004 1,337.700 449,300 551,300 260,600 96,100 42,500 32,100
15,000
2005 1,362,500 459,700 547,200 279,000 98,600 45,800 29,900
15,900
2006 1,399,100 478,000 534,200 290,500 103,100 49,100
28,600 17,500
2007 1,427,300 471,400 556,900 301,200 105,500 50,500
29,300 17,600
2008 1,434,800 477,500 562,800 295,800 105,300 50,700
29,100 17,300
2009 1,443,500 479,000 563,500 303,500 105,200 51,200
28,200 17,500
2010 1,446,000 451,600 561,400 327,200 104,600 48,000
26,600 18,700
Note: Counts based on prisoners with a sentence of more than 1
year. All estimates include persons
under age 18. See Methodology for estimation method.
aIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native
Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying as
two or more races.

14. bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
cData source used to estimate race and Hispanic origin changed
in 2010. Use caution when comparing to prior years. See
Methodology.
Sources: BJS, National Prisoner Statistics Program, Federal
Justice Statistics Program, National Corrections Reporting
Program, Survey
of Inmates in State and Local Correctional Facilities, and
National Inmate Survey.
Source: United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2012). Prisoners in 2010. Publication No. NCJ
236096.
Washington, D.C.: Guerino, P., Harrison, P., & Sabol, W.
Table p26
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 96 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.2 Crime Rates and Race CHAPTER 4
Table 4.3: Estimated number of sentenced prisoners under state
and federal jurisdiction,
by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age, December 31, 2010
Male Female
Age Totala Whiteb Blackb Hispanic Totala Whiteb Blackb
Hispanic
Totalc 1,446,000 451,600 561,400 327,200 104,600 48,000
26,600 18,700
18-19 20,900 3,900 10,400 5,300 800 300 300 200
20-24 173,300 42,800 75,200 44,800 10,800 4,600 2,900 2,300

15. 25-29 235,300 64,700 94,900 62,300 17,700 7,900 4,400 3,800
30-34 235,400 64,300 95,700 62,400 17,700 8,200 4,300 3,500
35-39 199,700 58,800 78,300 49,900 15,500 7,300 3,800 2,700
40-44 182,200 61,200 68,200 37,700 15,300 7,100 4,000 2,500
45-49 163,700 59,400 60,000 28,600 13,000 6,100 3,500 1,700
50-54 114,000 43,200 41,100 18,000 7,700 3,600 2,100 1,100
55-59 61,700 24,700 21,400 9,300 3,500 1,600 900 500
60-64 32,000 14,700 9,300 4,600 1,500 800 300 200
65 or
older
25,300 13,500 5,600 3,600 900 500 200 100
Note: Data source used to estimate race and Hispanic origin
changed in 2010 and data source for age
distributions was enhanced between 2009 and 2010. Use caution
when comparing to prior years.
Counts based on prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year.
See Methodology for estimation
method.
aIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native
Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two
or more races.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
cIncludes persons under age 18.
Source: United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice

16. Statistics (2012). Prisoners in 2010. Publication No. NCJ
236096.
Washington, D.C.: Guerino, P., Harrison, P., & Sabol, W.
Table p26
The disproportionate impact of the correctional system on
people of color is most apparent
when data from jails and state and federal prisons are combined
and then compared to rep-
resentation in the general population. Incarceration rates can be
calculated relying on 2010
data, the most recent available, from both the U.S. Census and
the Bureau of Justice Statis-
tics (United States Census Bureau, 2011; Minton, 2011;
Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2012).
The incarceration rate for Whites in America is considerably
lower compared to people of
color. In 2010, 831,286 individuals were identified as White
incarcerated, including both
jails and prisons. With 226,948,223 Whites in the general
population of the United States,
the incarceration rate for Whites was approximately 366 for
every 100,000 (United States
Census Bureau, 2011; Minton, 2011; Guerino, Harrison, &
Sabol, 2012).
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 97 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.2 Crime Rates and Race CHAPTER 4
Comparatively speaking, the incarceration rate for African
Americans is strikingly high.
As of 2010, there were 871,019 African Americans incarcerated

17. in jails and prisons in
the United States. African Americans constitute 12% of the U.S.
general population, or
39,496,514 people. Thus, the incarceration rate for African
Americans in 2010 was 2,205
per 100,000. Analyzing this new data, African Americans are
incarcerated at a rate that is
approximately six times higher than Whites (United States
Census Bureau, 2011; Minton,
2011; Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2012).
Hispanics also experience incarceration at very high rates. Non-
White Hispanics repre-
sent 16.3% of the American population, or 51,094,696
individuals. Combining both jails
and prisons, there are 464,199 Hispanics incarcerated in the
United States. Therefore, the
incarceration rates for Hispanics in America is approximately
908 per 100,000 in the gen-
eral population, nearly 2.5 times the rate of Whites (United
States Census Bureau, 2011;
Minton, 2011; Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2012).
The incarceration data presented in the previous section is based
on a cross-section analy-
sis, or a study designed to describe, compare, and contrast
evidence gathered at a specific
point in time. In contrast, a longitudinal analysis describes,
compares, and contrasts evi-
dence over a period of time. In general, longitudinal studies are
considered a superior and
more reliable research method compared to cross-sectional
evidence.
The longitudinal data about the disproportionate impact of
incarceration on people of

18. color presents an even more striking picture. According to an
analysis by Marc Mauer and
Ryan King (2007) of The Sentencing Project, if current
incarceration trends continue, 1 out
of every 3 African American boys born in 2008 in America will
serve time in prison over
the course of their lifetime, compared to 1 out of 17 White
males. Similarly, 1 out of every
6 Hispanic baby boys born in 2008 in America is likely to serve
time in prison over their
lifetime. The incarceration of a substantial number of
individuals, young men of color in
particular, has a profound impact on neighborhoods and
communities.
Incarceration’s impact on communities is cumulative (Lusane,
1991). Similarly, when pris-
oners return to the community, this reentry process is
concentrated within states, within
zip codes, and within communities (Petersilia, 2009). Thus
incarceration has consequences
for communities and regions, not just individuals. Since
incarceration rates disproportion-
ately impact individuals and communities of color, issues of
family instability, reentry,
employment, and political representation also
disproportionately impact communities of
color (see Chapter 2).
These data on racial differences in incarceration rates raise a
series of important issues in
the study of crime and criminology. Many of the founding
documents of the United States
make profound and meaningful promises about due process,
equality under the law, and
equal protection of the laws. As social scientists, it is critically

19. important to study dynam-
ics that may or may not contribute to the overrepresentation of
the poor and people of
color in the criminal justice system.
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 98 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
In the modern era, law enforcement bodies are collecting and
analyzing more system-
atic data about racial differences in the criminal justice system
and attempting to create
policies to address these disparities. One of the broadest
initiatives began in 1988, called
disproportionate minority contact (DMC) initiated by the
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
via the United States Department of Justice. DMC requires that
“each State must address
efforts to reduce the proportion of youth detained or confined in
secure detention facili-
ties . . . who are members of minority groups” (Coleman, n.d.).
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
seeks to gather reliable data
about DMC in order to craft proactive and multifaceted
strategies. For example, their
most recent report “Reducing Disproportionate Minority
Contact: Preparation at the Local
Level” focuses on the importance of communicating accurate
and empirically driven

20. information about the crime problem to the American public.
The major challenge here
may be the inaccuracies frequently presented by the media.
After analyzing 77 research
studies on the issue, the report made the following
determination:
Overall, the studies taken together indicate that depictions of
crime in the
media are not reflective of the rate of crime generally, the
proportion of crime
which is violent, the proportion of crime committed by people
of color, or the
proportion of crime committed by young people. (Soler &
Garry, 2009, p. 2)
The DMC initiatives reflect some of the central goals of
criminology. Both emphasize that
politically neutral, reliable, empirical information is key to
addressing a host of issues in
the criminal justice system, including its disproportionate
impact on people of color.
4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social Class
Chapter 3 contained a depth-oriented examination of crime and
social class. The evidence presented suggested that in some
modest ways, those of lower socio-economic status may be more
likely to commit certain types of crime. However,
the bulk of the evidence suggests that a series of dynamics make
the poor more likely
Web Field Trip: Mass Incarceration Across the United States
Visit the website of The Sentencing Project, an institute
dedicated to “research and advocacy for reform
of the criminal justice system”:

21. http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm. Use the
interactive
map to view the corrections population and race and ethnicity
disparity in your specific state.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. How does your state compare with neighboring states?
2. How does your state compare with the national average?
3. What is the state with the lowest racial disparity?
4. What is the state with the highest racial disparity?
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 99 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
to be caught and punished by the criminal justice system, and
often punished severely.
Since people of color experience poverty and marginalization at
higher rates than Whites,
the class-based disadvantages built into the criminal justice
system are likely particularly
acute for people of color. Thus, people of color are more likely
to live in more visible resi-
dentially crowded communities, to be unable to post bail, to be
represented by the public
defender, and to take less advantageous plea bargains.
However, a series of dynamics suggests that the criminal justice
system discriminates
against racial minority groups, sometimes independent of social
class. It is far beyond the

22. scope of a single textbook chapter to archive and analyze the
historic evolution of racial
and ethnic dynamics in America. However, many criminologists
link the disproportionate
impact of the criminal justice system to the legacy of slavery,
Jim Crow laws, segregation,
and labor exploitation woven into the fabric of America
(Shelden, 2010). The following
sections will analyze a series of criminal justice system policies
and dynamics that seem to
disproportionately and discriminately impact people of color.
The War on Drugs
In 1972 President Richard Nixon declared a “War on Drugs”
with significant and long-
standing consequences for the American criminal justice
system. This metaphor described
that drug policy in America would be first and foremost a law
enforcement and criminal
justice system issue, and secondarily an issue of public health.
Under a larger “tough on
crime” political platform, the Nixon administration’s punitive
approach to drugs set a
precedent that was largely continued by subsequent
administrations of both political par-
ties (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010).
The War on Drugs reshaped the American correctional system.
Since the inception of the
War on Drugs, the number of drug offenders in America’s jails
and prisons has increased
more than 1,000% (Fellner, 2000). In the early 1980s, jails and
prisons in the United States
were just beginning to experience an influx of drug offenders.
As a point of comparison,

23. in 1980 drug offenders constituted approximately 6.5% of all
prison inmates in the state
system and 25% of all prison inmates in the federal system
(Fellner, 2000; Mohamed &
Fritsvold, 2010). In comparison, in 2009 drug offenders
constituted 18% of all state prison
inmates and 51% of federal inmates (Guerino, Harrison, &
Sabol, 2012). These data clearly
demonstrate the increase in the proportion of drug offenders in
the criminal justice system
produced by changes in drug policy. However, the impact of
these policies on incarcera-
tion may be more apparent when examining changes in the
number of individual offend-
ers incarcerated for drug crime. In 1980, 581,000 people were
arrested for drug crimes,
and by 2009, the number almost tripled to 1,663,000 people. In
1980, about 41,000 people
were in prison or jail for drug crimes, and by 2003, that number
neared 500,000 (Mauer &
King, 2007).
According to experts, this dramatic increase in incarceration
was the result of the War on
Drugs and related punitive drug policies and not driven by an
increase in rates of drug use
or a dramatic increase in drug crime (Fellner, 2000). Moreover,
criminologists frequently
criticize America’s drug policies for their disproportionate
impact on people of color.
Since the declaration of the War on Drugs in the early 1970s, a
significant percentage of
our country’s law enforcement resources are dedicated to drug
offenders. For example,

24. coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 100 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
in 2009, 1,663,582 people were arrested for nonviolent drug
offences in the United States
(Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2009). Of these arrests,
82% were for drug posses-
sion offenses, while 18% were for the sale or manufacturing of
illegal drugs (FBI, 2009).
These 1,663,582 arrests constitute more people than those who
live in 11 of our 50 states
including New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Idaho, Montana,
Vermont, and Wyoming.
It is more people than those who live in the largest 46 of 50
largest cities in the United
States, including Philadelphia; Phoenix; San Antonio; Dallas;
Jacksonville, Florida; San
Francisco; Austin; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit; Memphis;
Baltimore; Tucson; Sacramento;
Oklahoma City; Las Vegas; Milwaukee; Portland, Oregon;
Miami; Raleigh, North
Carolina; Atlanta; Minneapolis; and Washington, DC.
The War on Drugs and Racial Discrimination
In 2007, Ron Paul was contending to become the Republican
nominee for President of the
United States. In a presidential debate sponsored by PBS, Paul
presented evidence about
the discriminatory impacts of American drug policy:
For instance, blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs. Yet
36% of those

25. arrested are blacks. And it ends up that 63% of those who
finally end up in
prison are blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have
more courts and
more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t
working.
(quoted in Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010, p. 4)
Punitive drug policies have not affected all groups equally.
When examining the over-
representation of racial minorities in the criminal justice
system, evidence suggests, as
noted by Ron Paul, that intentional and unintentional
discriminatory drug policy is of
paramount importance. Research consistently shows that
African Americans and Whites
seem to use illegal drugs at very similar rates (Mauer, 2011).
However, Blacks and His-
panics comprise 65% of drug offenders in state prisons (West
and Sabol, 2010). It seems
despite similar levels of criminality, people of color are far
more likely to be arrested and
eventually incarcerated for drug crime.
In 2007, researchers Phillip Beatty, Amanda Petteruti, and Jason
Ziedenberg analyzed
Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 2003 concerning racial
disparities and the War
on Drugs. These researchers were working on behalf of the
Justice Policy Institute, a
nonprofit think tank that advocates for progressive, justice-
based reforms in the
criminal justice system. Their report, “The Vortex: The
Concentrated Racial Impact of
Drug Imprisonment and Characteristics of Punitive Counties,”
makes a compelling case

26. that drug policies discriminate against traditionally
marginalized groups. They write,
African Americans are disproportionately incarcerated for drug
offenses in the
US, though they use and sell drugs at similar rates to Whites.
As of 2003, twice
as many African Americans as whites were incarcerated for
drug offenses in
state prisons in the US. African Americans make up 13% of the
total US popu-
lation, but accounted for 53% of sentenced drug offenders in
state prisons in
2003. (Beatty, Petteruti, & Ziedenberg, 2007, p. 2)
Michael Tonry, is a renowned criminologist and sentencing
policy expert who further
supports that the War on Drugs discriminates against racial
minorities. Tonry is currently
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 101 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
serving as the director of the Institute of Crime and Public
Policy at the University of
Minnesota and has wide-ranging experience in law and public
policy. Tonry argues that
for many types of crime, the racial disparities in incarceration
are a result of racial dis-
parities in crime rates. However, Tonry argues that America’s
drug policies in practice do
actively discriminate by race. “Drug law enforcement is the

27. conspicuous exception. Blacks
are arrested and confined in numbers grossly out of line with
their use or sale of drugs”
(Tonry, 1996, p. 49).
The disproportionate impact of drug arrests and incarceration on
minority populations is
exacerbated because of recidivism rates. Drug offenders have
higher recidivism rates com-
pared to most other types of crime (Mohamed & Fritsvold,
2010). Thus, drug offenders are
particularly likely to be incarcerated multiple times, and often
frequently “churning” in
and out of the correctional system (Petersilia, 2009). Over time,
the cumulative effect of the
racial disparities associated with the War on Drugs, and the
related challenges of reentry,
will have an even more significant impact on individuals and
communities of color.
There seems to be compelling evidence from politicians, policy
advocates, and respected
scholars that the War on Drugs does discriminate by race, that
the overrepresentation of
people of color in the criminal justice system can in part be
explained by drug policies
that intentionally or unintentionally result in a disproportionate
impact on racial minori-
ties. Racial discrimination may be particularly apparent when
examining case studies of
certain drugs: crack cocaine and marijuana.
Crack Versus Powder Cocaine
As suggested by Judge Cahill, punitive crack cocaine laws, and
their disproportionate
impact on racial and ethnic minorities, have been particularly

28. controversial in the contem-
porary criminal justice system:
This one provision, the crack statute, has been directly
responsible for incarcer-
ating nearly an entire generation of young black American men
for very long
periods. It has created a situation that reeks with inhumanity
and injustice. The
scales of justice have been turned topsy-turvy so that those
masterminds, the
kingpins of drug trafficking, escape detection while those whose
role is mini-
mal, even trivial, are hoisted on the spears of an enraged
electorate and at the
pinnacle of their youth are imprisoned for years while those
responsible for
the evil of the day remain free. (U.S. District Court Judge Clyde
S. Cahill, 1994.
Quoted in Inciardi, Surratt, & Kurtz, 2007, p. 252)
Crack cocaine is a relatively recent and particularly harmful
version of the illegal drug
cocaine. The powder form of cocaine has been in existence
since the mid 1800s. Powder
cocaine had a brief period of widespread use in everyday
products in the late 1800s and
early 1900s, including hay fever remedies and Coca-Cola soft
drinks (Musto, 1999). Crack
cocaine is powder cocaine mixed with baking soda and water
and cooked over a stove or
in a microwave. It can be smoked by the user. Due to its method
of ingestion, crack deliv-
ers a more potent and more short-lived high compared to
powder cocaine. Moreover,
crack can be sold in much less-expensive individual doses

29. because it requires less cocaine
per use compared to the powder form. While the origins of
crack cocaine are not entirely
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 102 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
clear, its use became popular in some American cities in the
mid to late 1980s (Reinarman
& Levine, 1997).
The dangers of crack cocaine and its association with people of
color were likely exagger-
ated by the American news media in the late 1980s and into the
early 1990s. Vivid arti-
cles and television features presented crack cocaine in
America’s cities as an “epidemic,”
“plague,” or “national crisis.” Crack was overwhelmingly
associated with users and deal-
ers who were from traditionally marginalized groups, often poor
men of color. Research
suggests that while most crack users are White, crack is
disproportionately used by mem-
bers of racial minority groups
(Inciardi, Surratt, & Kurtz, 2007).
Moreover, the advent of crack
cocaine did likely increase the
volatility and attendant violence
of the underground market for
drugs, but at the height of crack
use in the late 1980s approxi-
mately 96% of Americans had

30. never tried crack cocaine (Rein-
arman & Levine, 1997). It seems
that crack use was most visible
among some marginalized indi-
viduals in some American cities.
But there is no reliable evidence
that crack use was an epidemic
(Reinarman & Levine, 1997;
Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009).
In the late 1980s, the Regan Administration signed a series of
extremely punitive laws
against illegal drugs, and crack cocaine in particular. The 1986
and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse
Acts created a series of mandatory minimum penalties for
illegal drugs at the federal
level. Mandatory minimum sentences restrict discretion in the
judicial process by speci-
fying the term of incarceration to be served based on the type
and amount of drug pos-
sessed by the accused. Powder and crack cocaine are different
versions of the same drug,
but were treated very differently by this legislation.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act created a 100:1 ratio for penalties for
crack versus powder
cocaine. The mandatory minimum sentencing scheme specified
that a defendant found
guilty of possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine would trigger a
mandatory 5-year prison
term. Five grams of crack cocaine constitutes between 10–50
individual doses of the drug
and has an approximate street value of between $125 to $750. In
dramatic contrast, 500
grams of powder cocaine was required to trigger the same 5-
year federal mandatory

31. minimum sentence. Five hundred grams of powder cocaine
likely constitutes between
2,500 and 5,000 individual doses of the drug and has an
estimated street value of between
$32,500 and $50,000 (Reinarman & Levine, 1997; Berger, Free,
& Searles, 2009; Inciardi,
Surratt, & Kurtz, 2007).
Mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine have
disproportionately impacted the
most visible and marginalized users of the drug, who are often
young, urban, men of
Courtesy Everett Collection
During the 1980s, crack cocaine use was presented as an
epidemic largely associated with poor men of color.
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 103 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
color. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Blacks have accounted
for approximately 80%
of all crack arrests (Mauer, 2011). The evidence is quite strong
that crack cocaine laws
have contributed to the overrepresentation of members of racial
minority groups in the
criminal justice system (Reinarman & Levine, 1997; Berger,
Free, & Searles, 2009; Inciardi,
Surratt, & Kurtz, 2007).
The case of Derrick Curry demonstrates the punitiveness of the

32. federal mandatory min-
imum sentencing laws on crack cocaine. This case is presented
in a 2007 article titled
“African Americans, Crack, and the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines” by James Inciardi,
Hilary Surratt, and Steven Kurtz. In the early 1990s, Derrick
Curry, an African American
20-year-old college student in Washington, DC, was studying
criminal justice. He was
also involved in the distribution of crack cocaine but seemed to
be “no more than a low-
level drug courier” (Inciardi, Surratt, & Kurtz, 2007, p. 253).
Curry was caught with over
one pound of crack cocaine in his automobile after a larger
network of dealers had been
under the surveillance of both the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA). Curry was eventually
sentenced to a prison term of
19 years and 7 months without the possibility of parole. The
authors argue,
Derrick Curry’s sentence, by almost any available standard, is
incomprehen-
sibly severe. It is nearly three times the prison sentence served
by most mur-
derers in the United States; it is four times the prison sentence
served by most
kidnappers; it is five times the prison sentence served by most
rapists; and it
is ten times the prison sentence served by those who illegally
possess guns.
(Inciardi, Surratt, & Kurtz, 2007, p. 253)
After more than 25 years in existence, new legislation in 2010
altered the mandatory

33. minimum sentence schema for crack cocaine. In December of
2010, President Obama
signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law. Under the Fair
Sentencing Act the 500 grams of
powder cocaine necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory
minimum prison term remains
unchanged. However, the new legislation prescribes that 28
grams of crack cocaine are
now required to trigger the mandatory 5-year prison sentence.
This replaces the old 100:1
quantity ratio of powder to crack cocaine with an 18:1 ratio. In
the original legislation, the
precise timeline for implementing the change, and whether or
not the legislation would
apply retroactively, was not particularly precise. As of this
writing, lawmakers are consid-
ering various models to address this timeline issue (Fields,
2010; Frieden, 2010).
Crack cocaine laws have a particularly controversial place in
the history of the Amer-
ican criminal justice system. Some critics contend that the
disproportionate impact of
these laws on people of color, and possibly the War on Drugs
more generally, was quite
foreseeable (Tonry, 1996). Regardless, the evidence suggests
quite strongly that members
of traditionally marginalized groups, African American males in
particular, were dis-
proportionately impacted by the harsh penalties for crack
cocaine. This issue of racial
discrimination—more specifically, similar criminal behavior
resulting in much different
consequences for different racial groups—is also evident in the
following case study of
marijuana arrests in California.

34. coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 104 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
Marijuana Possession Arrests in California
Contemporary research presents strong evidence of racial
discrimination in marijuana
arrests in California. This case study is particularly interesting
for criminologists because
marijuana possession arrests likely involve a high level of
police officer discretion. Mari-
juana laws are violated at relatively high rates, and the penalties
in California are gener-
ally less severe compared to other illicit drugs. According to
Peter Moskos, an associate
professor of law and political science at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice and ex-
police officer in inner-city Baltimore, when choosing to make
arrests, law enforcement
officers are more likely to exercise discretion for commonly
committed, low-level offenses
compared to more rare and serious types of crime (Moskos,
2008).
Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in America
by a significant margin
(Inciardi & McElrath, 2011). There are approximately 14
million current users of marijuana
(Inciardi & McElrath, 2011). Moreover, of Americans over the
age of 12, 95 million people,
or 40% of that population, have tried the drug (Inciardi &
McElrath, 2011). Marijuana-

35. related offenses accounted for more than 865,000 arrests in
2009, or 52% of all drug arrests
nationwide (FBI, 2009). Of all marijuana arrests in the United
States in 2009, 88% were for
possession, not intent to distribute or manufacturing/cultivation
(FBI, 2009). Moreover,
the western region of the United States has the highest rates of
drug use compared to
other regions (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010). This is possibly
evidenced by the fact that
there were 61,000 arrests for marijuana offenses in California in
2009 (FBI, 2009).
In 2010, the Drug Policy Alliance and California National
Association for the Advance-
ment of Colored People (NAACP) published two studies that
marshaled compelling
evidence about racial discrimination in marijuana arrests in
California. Harry Levine,
drug policy expert and professor of sociology at Queens College
City University of New
York; Jon Gettman, a professor of criminal justice at
Shenandoah University; and Loren
Siegel, an attorney for LS Consulting in Brooklyn New York,
conducted the research.
The researchers examined marijuana use data by race and
Uniform Crime Report (see
Chapter 1) arrests data for marijuana by race (Levine Gettman,
& Siegel, 2010a; 2010b).
Web Field Trip: Tulia, Texas
Visit the website of PBS
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/tuliatexas/ and watch the
video pre-
view of the 1999 Tulia, Texas, case. This documentary
chronicles the wrongful arrest, prosecution,

36. and incarceration of 46 people in a small Texas town for alleged
drug crimes, almost all of whom
were poor people of color. Moreover, it highlights the power
and discretion of the legal system and
criminal justice system actors.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. How does this case inform our larger discussion of the War
on Drugs and racial discrimination?
2. What can be done to improve the checks and balances built
into the criminal justice system?
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 105 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/tuliatexas/
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
The evidence presented in the study demonstrates that across
age groups young Whites
use marijuana at higher rates compared to both young Hispanics
and African Ameri-
cans. The report relied on drug use data provided by the U.S.
Department of Health and
Human Services and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
(SAMHSA). Marijuana use data was available for 18 to 25 year
olds from 2002 to 2007
(see Figure 4.1). These data compared respective marijuana use
rates in the past month, in
the past year, and over one’s lifetime for Whites, African
Americans, and Hispanics. For
every year between 2002 and 2007, 18- to 25-year-old Whites

37. had consistently higher rates
of marijuana use than both African Americans and Hispanics
across all categories. The
study reports similar findings for younger age groups as well
(Levine Gettman, & Siegel,
2010a; 2010b).
Figure 4.1: Marijuana use by Whites, Blacks, and Latinos ages
18 to 25,
2002–2007
Based on data from the U.S. Dept HHS, SAMHSA, Office of
Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health,
2002–2007.
For 18 to 25 year olds, across all years in the study, and across
all frequencies of marijuana use measured,
Whites used marijuana more frequently than did African
Americans and Latinos.
Marijuana use data was also available for 12 to 17 year olds
from 2004 to 2007 (see
Figure 4.2). These data also compared respective marijuana use
rates between Whites,
African Americans, and Hispanics; however, data was only
available for marijuana use
in the past year and in the past month. In the 12 to 17 age
cohort and across both use
categories presented, Whites had consistently higher rates of
marijuana use than did
their African American and Hispanic counterparts. It seems that
in the mid 2000s, young
Whites were consistently committing the crime of marijuana
possession at higher rates
than young Blacks and Hispanics, a pattern that seemingly
should be reflected in arrest

38. rates (Levine Gettman, & Siegel, 2010a; 2010b).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2002-03 2004-05 2006 2007 2002-03 2004-05 2006 2007 2002-
03 2004-05 2006 2007
Ever Used Marijuana Used Marijuana in Past Year Used
Marijuana in Past Month
Whites
Blacks
Latinos
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 106 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.2: Marijuana use by Whites, Blacks, and Latinos ages
12 to 17,

39. 2004–2007
Based on data from the U.S. Dept HHS, SAMHSA, Office of
Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health,
2002–2007
For 12 to 17 year olds, across all years in the study, and across
all frequencies of marijuana use measured,
Whites used marijuana more frequently than did African
Americans and Latinos.
Despite higher rates of marijuana use and thus possession by
Whites, African Americans
were significantly more likely to be arrested for marijuana
possession in California in the
mid 2000s. To be able to make meaningful comparisons between
racial groups with
significantly different populations, arrest data was presented as
a rate: num-ber of arrests
in a racial group per 100,000 members of that racial group in
the general population of
a given city. Between 2006 and 2008, data from all 25 cities
showed that despite lower
rates of marijuana use, African Americans were arrested at
much higher rates
compared to Whites. Overall, Blacks were arrested at a rate that
was between 4 and 12
times higher than Whites. Los Angeles is California’s largest
city and home to 10% of
Californians. In this city, African Americans were arrested at
seven times the rate of
Whites for marijuana possession. In San Diego, California’s
second most populous city,
African Americans were arrested at six times the rate of their
White counterparts for mari-
juana possession (Levine, Gettman, & Siegel, 2010a).

40. 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2004-05 2006 2007 2004-05 2006 2007
Used Marijuana in Past Year Used Marijuana in Past Month
Whites
Blacks
Latinos
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 107 7/5/13 4:18 PM
These racially discriminatory outcomes in marijuana arrests
were also evident when
comparing Whites and Hispanics (see Figure 4.3). Again,
Whites show higher rates of
marijuana use compared to Hispanics and thus commit the crime
of marijuana possession
at higher rates. The researchers again controlled for the
different populations of
Hispanics and Whites in California cities by presenting data as
arrest rates. In all 15 cities
presented in the report, Hispanics were significantly more likely
to be arrested for
marijuana possession compared to Whites. Overall, Hispanics

41. were between 1.3 and 2.3
times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than
Whites, despite
committing the crime less frequently (Levine, Gettman, &
Siegel, 2010b).
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.3: Fifteen cities in 12 California counties: White and
Latino rates
of marijuana possession arrests, 2006–2008
From Levine, H., Gettman, J., & Siegel, S. (2010a). Arresting
Blacks for marijuana in California: Possession arrests in 25
cities,
2006–2008. Los Angeles, CA: Drug Policy Alliance and
California NAACP, p. 10.
Between 2006 and 2008, in all 15 cities presented in the report,
Latinos were between 1.3 and 2.3 times
more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession compared to
Whites.
This report is fairly compelling evidence of widespread racially
discriminatory outcomes
in marijuana arrests. When reflecting on the evidence, it is
important to consider the com-
plex relationships between social class, race, crime, and
punishment in the United States.
Issues of visibility, residential crowding, and law enforcement
resource allocation deci-
sions play a significant role in the disproportionate impact of
marijuana arrests on minor-

42. ity group members in California. Social class-based dynamics,
like the ability to post bail
and to hire a private attorney, may play a role in these racially
discriminatory outcomes
as well. Examining these complex relationships, the authors
conclude that these racially
biased outcomes are not necessarily the product of explicit
racist motivations by individ-
ual law enforcement officers. Instead, the authors contend that
these biased outcomes are
Chino, San Bernadino Co
Santa Barbara, S Barbar Co
El Centro, Imperial Co
Upland, San Bernadino Co
San Jose, Santa Clara Co
Fremont, Alameda Co
Escondido, San Diego Co
Oxnard, Ventura Co
San Diego, San Diego Co
Fresno, Fresno Co
Corona, Riverside Co
Visalia, Tulare Co
Salinas, Monterey Co

43. Modesto, Stanilaus Co
Bakers�eld, Kern Co
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
White Marijuana Posession Arrest
Rate, per 100,000 Whites
Latino Marijuana Posession Arrest
Rate, per 100,000 Latinos
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 109 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
a structural, “system-wide phenomenon” or “racism without
racists” (Levine, Gettman,
& Siegel, 2010b, p. 13).
[W]e do not think the arrests are mostly a result of personal bias
or racism on
the part of individual patrol officers and their immediate
supervisors. Rather,
this is a system-wide phenomenon occurring in cities and
counties through-
out California.
Police departments deploy most patrol and narcotics police to
certain neigh-
borhoods, usually designated “high crime.” These are
disproportionately low-

44. income, and disproportionately Latino and African American. It
is in these
neighborhoods where the police make most patrols, and where
they stop and
search the most vehicles and individuals, looking for
“contraband” of any
type in order to make an arrest. The item that people in any
neighborhood are
most likely to possess, which can get them arrested, is a small
amount of mari-
juana. In short, the arrests are ethnically and racially biased
mainly because the
police are systematically “fishing” for arrests in only some
neighborhoods, and
methodically searching only some “fish.” This produces what
has been termed
“racism without racists.” (Levine, Gettman, & Siegel, 2010b, p.
13)
In sum, the War on Drugs has had a disproportionate impact on
people of color and con-
tributed significantly to the overrepresentation of members of
minority groups in the
criminal justice system. The evidence suggests that traditionally
marginalized groups
tend to commit drug crime in similar rates compared to Whites.
However, as demon-
strated in the cases of crack cocaine and marijuana possession,
people of color tend to be
punished more frequently and more harshly. The punitive
federal mandatory minimum
sentencing scheme for crack cocaine makes the inequitable
impact on people and commu-
nities of color that much more significant. In part because of
racial and ethnic inequality,
the War on Drugs and its attendant punitive drug legislation

45. remains very controversial
in the contemporary criminal justice system.
Web Field Trip: Drug Policy and the Disproportionate Impact
on People of Color
Watch the presentation from Ethan Nadelmann, the founder and
executive director of the Drug Pol-
icy Alliance in which Nadelmann discusses the evolution of
drug policy in America and its longstand-
ing disproportionate impact on people of color:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iifGYnffrBI.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. What policies should we consider to make drug policy more
equitable?
2. Why should society as a whole be concerned about the
disproportionate impact of drug policy
on people of color?
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 110 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iifGYnffrBI
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
The Death Penalty and Racial Discrimination
As touched on in Chapter 4, the death penalty is another area of
criminal justice policy in
which there is significant evidence of racial discrimination.
Issues of racial inequality have
contributed to a series of Constitutional challenges to capital

46. punishment statutes over
time including the following: the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and
the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Within this
dynamic history, potentially
the moment when issues of racial discrimination and the death
penalty were most promi-
nent was the 1987 United States Supreme Court case McCleskey
v. Kemp.
Warren McCleskey, an African American man, was convicted of
the 1978 murder of a
White police officer and eventually sentenced to death. The
murder took place during
the armed robbery of a furniture store in Fulton County,
Georgia. McCleskey appealed
his case claiming that racial discrimination in the state of
Georgia’s death penalty system
violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
In addition, McCleskey
argued that the Eighth Amendment implies proportionately
between the severity of the
criminal offense and the severity of the punishment. If the death
penalty did discriminate
by race, and some offenders were advantaged or disadvantaged
in the Georgia crimi-
nal justice system, it could undermine this proportionality
standard. In 1987, the case
appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States
(Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009;
Linder, 2012).
McCleskey v. Kemp presented evidence to the Court of systemic
racial discrimination in

47. the Georgia death penalty system. The case hinged on what
became known as the Baldus
Study, a statistical analysis of racial discrimination in the
Georgia capital punishment
process conducted by law professors David Baldus, Charles
Pulaski, and George Wood-
worth. The study examined more than 2,000 murder cases that
appeared in Georgia crimi-
nal courts throughout the decade of the 1970s. The Baldus
Study presented evidence of
“victim-based” discrimination in capital cases in which African
American murderers who
were convicted of killing White victims were significantly more
likely to be sentenced to
death, compared to different racial combinations of both
offenders and victims. More spe-
cifically, the Baldus Study showed that murder cases with White
victims were 4.3 times
more likely to result in a death sentence compared to cases in
which the murder victim
was Black, even after statistically controlling for 39 other
variables (Baldus, Pulaski, &
Woodworth, 1983; Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009; Linder,
2012).
The evidence of racial bias in the Georgia capital system
presented in McCleskey v. Kemp
is compelling. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4
decision, ruled that there was
insufficient evidence that racial discrimination played a
significant role in McCleskey’s
case specifically, or in any particular individual case in the
state. Thus, Mr. McCleskey’s
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated.
Warren McCleskey was
executed in September of 1991 by electrocution in Jackson,

48. Georgia (Baldus, Pulaski, &
Woodworth, 1983; Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009; Linder,
2012).
Racial Profiling
Racial profiling is a “practice [that] entails police targeting of
particular groups for more
intrusive law enforcement because of their race, ethnicity, or
national origin” (Berger, Free,
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 111 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
& Searles, 2009, p. 418). Beginning in the early 1990s, a series
of high-profile lawsuits and
attention from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
corresponded with scholars
increasingly studying the issue of racial profiling.
A series of research studies have focused on motor vehicle stops
by law enforcement.
Studies from Maryland and New Jersey in the early and mid
1990s demonstrated that
motorists of color were much more likely than Whites to be
pulled over, and much more
likely to have their vehicles searched by police, despite not
being more likely to be speed-
ing or otherwise violating traffic laws (Berger, Free, & Searles,
2009; Russell, 2003).
Some policy makers and members of law enforcement argue that

49. profiling in general,
and sometimes racial profiling specifically, is a practical and
effective law enforcement
strategy. However, the empirical evidence does not support this
claim. David Harris is
a professor of law and associate dean for research at the
University of Pittsburg School
of Law. He has studied and written about racial profiling
extensively. In a 2003 study, he
calculated law enforcement “hit rates,” or the percentage of
motor vehicle stops that result
in contraband being found by the officer, or of any other
criminal offense being uncovered
in the course of the traffic stop. According to Harris, when
examining existing research
studies that provide the data necessary to calculate a hit rate,
law enforcement hit rates
are higher for Whites compared to both African Americans and
Hispanics. This research
strongly suggests that racial profiling is a counterproductive
law enforcement strategy as
well as a controversial one (Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009;
Harris, 2003).
However, some experts contend that racial profil-
ing is not a widespread law enforcement practice.
For example, in “Race and the Administration of
Criminal Justice in the United States,” Randall
Kennedy (2011) describes the varying defini-
tions of racial profiling used in the research and
emphasizes that “Ferreting out this information
when police deny that they are engaging in racial
profiling (however defined) is a difficult, conten-
tious endeavor” (Kennedy, 2011, p. 243).
Kennedy illustrates these complexities by exam-

50. ining a 2006 study of racial profiling in New York
City. This study demonstrated that of all law
enforcement stops of pedestrians in New York
City in 2006, 55% of those stopped were African
American. Thus, African American pedestrians
were stopped by police at a rate “twice the repre-
sentation of Blacks in the local population” (Ken-
nedy, 2011, p. 244). However, a more nuanced
examination of the evidence suggested that it may
be the descriptions of crime suspects, not explicit
racial profiling, that was the heart of the issue.
The study shows that in 2006, citizens and crime
victims in New York City frequently reported
descriptions of crime suspects that were African
Hill Street Studios/Blend Images/Getty Images
Claims that racial profiling is responsible for
the large number of minorities in prison are
widely debated.
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 112 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.3 Disparity Versus Discrimination: Race and Social
Class CHAPTER 4
Felony Disenfranchisement
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system have cumulative
consequences, including
restrictions on voting rights. Every state has laws governing the
voting rights of people
who are incarcerated as well as people who have been released
after serving their sen-

51. tences. Given the growth of the criminal justice system, these
laws impact a great number
of people. About 5.3 million Americans, or 1 in 41 adults,
currently or permanently expe-
rience felony disenfranchisement (Porter, 2010). Felony
disenfranchisement is the tem-
porary or permanent restriction of voting rights for individuals
with felony convictions.
The disproportionate incarceration of African American men is
reflected in the number of
people who are unable to vote—1.4 million, or 13% of all Black
men are disenfranchised
(The Sentencing Project, 2011).
Motivated by the close results of the presidential election in
2000, various groups have
been working to get state governments to reform their laws to
allow more people to
participate in the democratic process. According to public
opinion surveys, 80% of
Americans support returning voting rights to people who have
completed their sen-
tences, and about 66% support voting rights for people on
probation or parole (Porter,
2010). In 48 of 50 states and Washington, DC, incarcerated
people cannot vote (Maine
and Vermont allow inmates to vote). In 35 states, people on
parole are prohibited from
voting, and in 30 of these 35, probationers cannot vote. In 12
states, people who have
completed their sentences may lose their right to vote for life.
Eight of those states have
a variety of regulations including waiting periods and allowing
only people committed
of certain categories of crime to regain their voting rights. In
four of those states—Iowa,

52. Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia—people with a felony
conviction need a pardon from
the governor in order to regain their right to vote.
American. If the percentage of crime suspect descriptions that
were African American
were compared to the percentage of pedestrian stops of African
Americans, “Black pedes-
trians were stopped at a rate that was 20 to 30 percent lower
[emphasis in original] than
their representation in crime suspect descriptions” (Kennedy,
2011, p. 244).
The issue of racial profiling will continue to be of critical
importance in the field of crimi-
nology and for criminal justice policy. It seems that a
significant number of studies can
identify and demonstrate the existence and counterproductive
nature of racial profiling.
However, other studies demonstrate that factors other than race
may be central.
Web Field Trip: Racial Profiling
Visit the website of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
and listen to the audio interview with
ACLU Dennis Parker, the director of the ACLU Racial Justice
Program on the topic of racial profiling:
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/pervasive-problem-racial-
profiling.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Do you agree that federal government legislation is the key to
ending racial profiling?
2. What other approaches or strategies might be appropriate?

53. coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 113 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/pervasive-problem-racial-
profiling
Section 4.4 Immigration and Crime CHAPTER 4
4.4 Immigration and Crime
Immigration is a critically important issue within the study of
race, ethnicity, and crime. Moreover, policy makers continue to
debate the most prudent immigration and border control
policies. Using sound research methodologies, criminologists
have studied the
relationship between immigration and crime and provided the
public, policy makers, and
social scientists with empirically driven findings to inform this
issue.
Evidence suggests that increased immigration decreases crime
in America, though it
is likely associated with increased street gang membership and
plays a significant role
in traditional organized crime groups. However, overall,
immigration increases tend
to contribute to social-structural dynamics that decrease crime
such as “traditional
family values, higher rates of marriage, and extended family
supports that construct
ethnic enclaves of stability within these communities” (Berger,
Free, & Searles, 2009,
p. 305). Moreover, some researchers suspect that the long hours
required in many
jobs disproportionately held by immigrants may have a
dampening effect on crime.

54. Similarly, some experts contend that American society
overemphasizes immediate
material success and flamboyant wealth (Currie, 1998). Recent
immigrant populations
may not have been socialized to embrace this idea and thus are
more likely to sub-
scribe to long-term economic goals involving deferred
gratification (Lee, Martinez, &
Rosenfeld, 2001).
In recent years, many states have changed their laws to allow
more people with prior
convictions to vote. About 800,000 people have regained the
right to vote as a result of
increased public attention to the issue of disenfranchisement
and growing awareness of the
potential impact on election results (Porter, 2010). States
including Florida and Alabama
simplified the process of applying for clemency. Delaware,
Maryland, and New Mexico
repealed their policies of lifetime disenfranchisement.
Connecticut now permits people on
probation to vote, and Rhode Island allows those on probation
and parole to vote.
Web Field Trip: Felony Disenfranchisement
Visit the website of the Brenna Center for Justice to learn about
the felony disenfranchisement laws
in your state: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-
/d/download_file_48642.pdf.
Next, visit the website of 360degrees.org and their page
dedicated to felony disenfranchisement:
http://www.360degrees.org/ddata/voting/index.html.
After data is presented on the issue, a map will appear that

55. examines disenfranchisement rates for
the total population and for the African American male
population.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. What are the laws regarding felony disenfranchisement where
you live? Are voting rights
restored for ex-offenders where you live?
2. What are the laws in the states that neighbor yours?
3. What percentage of African American men cannot vote in
your state?
4. What states and regions seem to have the highest rates of
felony disenfranchisement for Afri-
can American men?
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 114 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-
/d/download_file_48642.pdf
http://www.360degrees.org/ddata/voting/index.html
Section 4.4 Immigration and Crime CHAPTER 4
A Defining Study on the Relationship Between Immigration and
Crime
A defining study on the relationship between immigration and
crime was published in
2009 titled “Exploring the Connection between Immigration and
Violent Crime Rates in
U.S. Cities, 1980–2000.” The authors, Graham Ousey, a
professor of sociology at the Col-

56. lege of William & Mary, and Charis Kubrin, a professor of
sociology at George Wash-
ington University, utilized their expertise in sociology,
criminology, research methods,
and quantitative analysis to produce a rich and informative
piece of research (Ousey &
Kubrin, 2009).
The methodology employed
in this study was designed to
address shortcomings in the
existing research on immigra-
tion and crime. The authors
demonstrated that historically
the relationship between immi-
gration rates and violent crime
rates has been studied using
cross-sectional research, exam-
ining the empirical picture of
crime and immigration at a
given point in time. Thus, the
authors employed a longitudi-
nal analysis that examined data
over a 20-year period, from 1980
to 2000. Moreover, the existing
research on this issue largely
does not intentionally connect
immigration and crime trends
with other social-structural issues in American society like
larger economic dynamics, fam-
ily dynamics, crime dynamics, and drug market dynamics. Thus,
the statistical analysis at
the heart of Ousey and Kubrin’s study included measures and
variables to understand the
relationship between immigration and violent crime, and also
how both these issues may

57. connect with these larger social-structural dynamics in America
(Ousey & Kubrin, 2009).
The research methodology employed in this study was powerful.
The authors gathered
crime and immigration data for 159 U.S. cities, each of which
had a population of 100,000
or more, from 1980 to 2000. The violent crime measure was
compiled using data from the
Uniform Crime Report (see Chapter 1), using average violent
crime rates in three-year
segments. Measuring rates of immigration is challenging,
especially when attempting to
include both documented and undocumented populations. The
authors responded to this
challenge by using a multifaceted measure for immigration
rates. They created a statistical
measure that included the percentage of the population of a
given city that is foreign born
within the past 10 years, the percentage of the population that
does not speak English
proficiently, and the percentage of the population that is of
Hispanic or Latino descent.
While no measure of crime or immigration is likely 100%
accurate, these multifaceted sta-
tistical measures will provide valid and powerful mechanisms to
study this issue (Ousey
& Kubrin, 2009).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Evidence suggests that increased immigration leads to a
decrease in crime in the United States.
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 115 7/5/13 4:18 PM

58. Section 4.4 Immigration and Crime CHAPTER 4
Ousey and Kubrin used a sophisticated statistical analysis to
test the many ways that
immigration rates and crime rates may influence each other and
larger structural dynam-
ics in American society. The results compiled from 159 cities,
using data from a 20-year
period, demonstrated that increases in immigration rates
decrease violent crime.
In the first model . . . we find evidence of a statistically
significant relationship
between change in immigration and change in violent crime.
Specifically, a one
unit increase over time in the immigration index is associated
with a decrease
of 253 violent crimes (per 100,000 persons). Interestingly . . .
[these findings
challenge] . . . popular perception that immigration is a major
contributor
of increased crime rates, but is consistent with theoretical
models proffering
rationales for why immigration has an inhibiting impact on
violence. (Ousey
& Kubrin, 2009, p. 461)
The authors then use their statistical model to explore a series
of possible explanations
for why increases in immigration rates tend to decrease violent
crime rates. Their analysis
demonstrates that increased immigration brings stability to
families and communities via
extended family and kinship networks. In general, increasing

59. stable, two-parent fami-
lies likely provides a series of social and practical support
systems that decrease violent
crime. Moreover, it is possible that the presence of both two-
parent families and extended
family networks in a community provide informal social control
that also discourages
individuals from engaging in criminal behavior, and possibly
violent criminal behavior
in particular.
Relying on sound and longitudinal statistical research, the core
finding of this study is
that increases in immigration rates decreases violent crime
rates. Similarly, other research-
ers have suspected that increases in immigration in recent
decades have been “a key factor
in contributing to the crime drop of the 1990s” (Ousey &
Kubrin, 2009, p. 466; Sampson,
Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005). According to the authors, this
finding likely contradicts
“popular perceptions” (Ousey & Kubrin, 2009, p. 461) on this
issue, and thus is critically
important for the continuing discussion about immigration and
border control policy.
Using the Sociological Lens: The New Jim Crow?
The U.S. Criminal Justice System is flawed, but is it racist?
After slavery was eradicated, racism and discrimination
persisted in the United States via a set of laws
known as Jim Crow. Between 1876 and 1965, these laws made
legal the separation of Whites and
Blacks in schools, communities, restaurants, transportation
systems, and other public spaces. Sepa-

60. rate areas were ostensibly equal, yet spaces and services
provided to Blacks were typically inferior
to those for Whites. Moreover, Jim Crow promoted
discrimination in myriad other areas, including
employment and hiring practices, lending protocol, and housing
approval, which served to institu-
tionalize racism in these and other areas. Although these
practices were over time invalidated, first
by the Supreme Court (in the landmark 1954 case, Brown v.
Board of Education) and later by the fed-
eral government (in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting
Rights Act of 1965), their lasting effect
was to inject into society deep-seated inequalities that denied
equal opportunity and experience to
millions of Americans for years beyond it was legal to do so.
(continued)
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 116 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Section 4.4 Immigration and Crime CHAPTER 4
Using the Sociological Lens: The New Jim Crow? (continued)
More than 45 years after Jim Crow, the state of racism and
discrimination in the United States remains unclear and hotly
debated. In the 21st century, it has been suggested that the
insidious effects of past discriminatory mistakes have waned
with time and over generations, as evidenced by evolving
perspectives of the general public and enormous gains made
by prominent African Americans, including the election of
Barack Obama to the presidency. On the other hand, many
believe that not only does the specter of Jim Crow continue
to haunt but that a new era of institutionalized racism has
been born via a criminal justice system that systematically
discriminates against Americans of color. These points are

61. considered in the following two perspectives, with editors at
the Socialist Worker detailing the ways in which the criminal
justice system is, like the Jim Crow system, systematically rac-
ist, and Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald arguing
the problem is not the system but
Americans of color who commit more crime than the general
public.
The Criminal Justice System Is Racist
In 2011, civil rights lawyer Michelle Alexander sharpened the
discussion of racism and justice in the
United States when she suggested that the War on Drugs and
other elements of the criminal justice
system had heralded a new era of Jim Crow-esque
institutionalized discrimination. In her book, The
New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness,
Alexander chronicles racial dispari-
ties in the War on Drugs and the justice system, explaining high
minority incarceration rates as the
product of a systematic war on people of color. “We have
managed decades after the civil rights
movement to create something like a caste system in the United
States,” says Alexander. “In major
urban areas, the majority of African-American men are either
behind bars, under correctional control
or saddled with criminal record and once branded as criminal or
a felon, they’re trapped for life in
second-class status” (quoted in Flanders, 2011).
Statistics proving disparities between the African American
population—about 13% of the U.S. popu-
lation—and the number of African Americans in prison abound,
with numerous voices explaining
the gap as the result of a racist system—that African Americans

62. are the target of more police stops
than Whites; are arrested more often than Whites for the same
infraction; are incarcerated more
often than Whites; are given longer sentences than Whites; and
are sentenced to death more often
than Whites. Relying in part on Alexander’s work and drawing
from numerous other studies, editors
at the Socialist Worker explain these disparities by charging the
criminal justice system with being
inherently biased in favor of Whites and against Blacks and
other Americans of color. The mistaken
belief that the United States operates in a post-racial state
further impedes progress on the problem,
they suggest.
Socialist Worker, “When Racism Is the Law,” April 4, 2012.
http://socialistworker.org/2012/
04/04/when-racism-is-the-law
The Criminal Justice System Is Not Racist
In the following perspective, Heather MacDonald rejects
accusations that the criminal justice system
is racist. She agrees that Blacks are incarcerated at higher rates
than Whites but says
Douglass Burrows/Getty Images
More than 45 years after Jim
Crow laws were invalidated,
some believe that discriminatory
practices still exist in the American
criminal justice system.
(continued)

63. coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 117 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://socialistworker.org/2012/04/04/when-racism-is-the-law
http://socialistworker.org/2012/04/04/when-racism-is-the-law
Section 4.4 Immigration and Crime CHAPTER 4
Using the Sociological Lens: The New Jim Crow? (continued)
these statistics reflect the many ways in which they commit
crime disproportionally. MacDonald
sharply disagrees with the editors of the Socialist Worker that
racism is behind Blacks’ higher incar-
ceration and sentencing rates; more Black crime is the
explanation, and she suggests ignoring this
truth does a disservice to the Black community and to all
Americans.
It can be hard to make sense of such sharply opposing opinions
on issues like racism and discrimina-
tion. Compounding the problem is that personal prejudice—that
is, the level of prejudice individual
Americans feel toward one another on a daily or personal
basis—is much lower than in decades
past, making it difficult for some Americans to believe that
racism is still a problem when it appears
so infrequently in their everyday lives. Polls of the American
public underscore this. In 2011, for
example, a poll taken jointly by USA Today and the Gallup
organization found that 86% of Americans
approve of marriage between White and Black couples,
compared to just 43% in 1983; 36% in 1978,
20% in 1968, and 4% in 1958 (Jones, 2011). The same poll
found that 89% of Americans think civil
rights for African Americans have either greatly or somewhat
improved, and 76% do not believe new

64. civil rights legislation is needed (Gallup Organization, 2011).
Yet looking more closely at American opinions of race reveals
deeper division. For example, a 2011
Washington Post poll found that 47% of Whites think that
Blacks have achieved racial equality
—but just 19% of Black respondents agree (Cohen & Craighill,
2011). A 2009 CNN/Opinion Research
Corporation poll found similar cracks between White and Black
perspectives when it revealed that
although 76% of Whites think that Blacks have as good a
chance as White people to get jobs for
which they are qualified, only 45% of Blacks think this is true
(CNN/Opinion Research Corporation,
2009). A different poll from the same year also revealed
significant differences in the experience
Whites and Blacks have with law enforcement: Just 6% of
Whites said they have been treated unfairly
by the police because of their race, while the majority of Black
respondents—56%—said they have
had this experience. This same poll found that just 11% of
Whites think it is very common for police
officers to be racist against Blacks; 45% of Blacks, however,
view this as a common problem (CNN/
Opinion Corporation, 2009).
Is racism largely a matter of perception, or are there systematic,
institutionalized racist forces at
work? Heather MacDonald details how she accounts for racial
disparities in the criminal justice sys-
tem, saying there are better explanations than racism.
Heather MacDonald, “Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?”
City Journal, Spring 2008. http://www
.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_ justice_system.html

65. Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. What do you think best explains high Black incarceration
rates compared to their percent of
the general population? Is institutionalized racism to blame?
Are genuinely high rates of Black
crime to blame? Are other factors to blame?
2. Heather MacDonald suggests that attributing high Black
incarceration rates to racism does
a disservice to the Black community. What does she mean by
this? Do you agree? Why or
why not?
3. What do you think best accounts for the radically different
perceptions of Black and White
Americans on the issues of police racism, the ability of Black
Americans to get jobs for which
they are qualified, and whether Blacks have achieved racial
equality?
4. What groups of people benefit most from the War on Drugs?
What groups of people are most
harmed by the War on Drugs? (continued)
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 118 7/5/13 4:18 PM
http://www.city-
journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html
http://www.city-
journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html
Chapter Summary CHAPTER 4
Chapter Summary

66. This chapter provided evidence to explore how issues of race
intertwine with social class, criminality, law enforcement, and
corrections. This discussion was framed sociologically by
defining race and ethnicity as social constructs, or social
entities
that do not have a fixed meaning or interpretation but rather are
continually reshaped
by societal norms and values. Data was presented that
demonstrated that racial minority
groups are overrepresented among the lower social classes in
America and in the cor-
rectional system. Since people of color experience poverty and
marginalization at higher
rates than Whites, the class-based disadvantages built into the
criminal justice system are
likely particularly acute for people of color.
Moreover, a legacy of research studies and other evidence
suggests racial minority groups
are discriminated against in the criminal justice system,
sometimes independent of social
class. This chapter critically analyzed how the War on Drugs
contributes to the over-
representation of people of color in the criminal justice system,
highlighting laws and
policies focused on crack cocaine and marijuana possession in
California. In addition, evi-
dence was presented concerning victim-based racial
discrimination in the death penalty,
racial profiling, and felony disenfranchisement.
The chapter concluded with an examination of the relationship
between immigration
rates and violent crime rates. Contrary to the opinion of many,
the research shows that

67. increases in immigration decrease violent crime rates. This
crime decrease is due to the
informal social control produced by family stability and
extended kinship networks
in communities.
In total, the evidence suggests that the American criminal
justice system in the new mil-
lennium continues to disproportionately impact the poor and
people of color. In some
instances this disproportionate impact by race is produced by
intentional and uninten-
tional discriminatory policies that make the poor and people of
color more likely to come
to the attention of law enforcement and more likely to be
punished harshly by the criminal
justice system.
Using the Sociological Lens: The New Jim Crow? (continued)
5. Consider the way in which a drug arrest can alter the course
of a person’s life. For example,
Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—both of whom have
admitted to experimenting
with drugs—may not have ascended to the presidency had they
been incarcerated at any point
in time. In what instances do strict drug sentences irreparably
harm people, and who are they
more likely to harm? In what instances do they help people and
better communities, and what
types of people and communities are they most likely to
benefit?
6. To what extent do you think Americans’ everyday
experiences with people of other races
and ethnicities—such as the people with whom they interact at

68. work and in their commu-
nity—informs their perceptions of the problem of racism in the
criminal justice system? Do
you think these experiences make them more or less likely to
have a realistic perspective on
the situation?
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 119 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Chapter Summary CHAPTER 4
Key Terms
Baldus Study A statistical analysis of
racial discrimination in the Georgia capital
punishment process conducted by law pro-
fessors David Baldus, Charles Pulaski and
George Woodworth, presented to the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1987 McCleskey v. Kemp.
ethnicity A group of individuals who
share common cultural beliefs, norms,
values, and practices.
felony disenfranchisement The tem-
porary or permanent restriction of vot-
ing rights for individuals with felony
convictions.
intraracial crime A criminal event in
which both the victim(s) and offender(s)
are the same race.
mandatory minimum sentences Sen-

69. tences that restrict discretion in the judicial
process by specifying the term of incarcer-
ation to be served based on the type and
amount of drug possessed by the accused.
race A group of individuals who are
distinguished by some perceived common
physical characteristics.
racial profiling A “practice [that] entails
police targeting of particular groups for
more intrusive law enforcement because
of their race, ethnicity, or national origin”
(Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009, p. 418).
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. The text explores race and ethnicity as social constructs that
have affected crime.
In your opinion, are there other social constructs that influence
the study of
crime? If so, which ones, and in what way?
2. In what way is the criminal justice system cumulative?
3. What are core differences between race, ethnicity, and
national origin?
4. In your opinion, what have been among the main outcomes of
the War on Drugs?
How close has it come to its original goals of reducing drug use
and punishing
drug suppliers?
5. In your opinion, is felony disenfranchisement an appropriate
punishment? Why
or why not?

70. 6. What are kinship networks, and what bearing do they have on
crime?
7. What does the phrase “racism without racists” mean in the
context of the
chapter?
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 120 7/5/13 4:18 PM
Chapter Summary CHAPTER 4
In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
The definition of crime changes as society changes its norms
and values. Such changes also impact
social responses to crimes. Experts comment on the study of
crime, how crime impacts groups they
work with, and different crime response and intervention
methods.
Erik Fritsvold
Why is it important to examine the disproportion among races in
the incarcer-
ated population?
One of the cornerstone questions in all of criminology is why
does our incar-
cerated population look so different from our general
population? Clearly, jails
and prisons in the United States over-represent men, people of
color, and those
of lower socioeconomic status. The research literature that
examines explana-
tions for this overrepresentation is complex. There is modest

71. evidence to sug-
gest that people of color are more likely to perpetrate certain
types of crimes,
and to be crime victims in certain categories of crime. However,
there is a legacy of literature that
examines reasons why for the same criminal behavior, people of
color are more likely to come to the
attention of law enforcement and more likely to be punished
harshly by the criminal justice system.
Potentially, one of the most important explanations within this
discussion is spatial and geographic
density. People of color are more likely to live in residentially
crowded urban communities. In these
communities, by definition, there is less private space. Thus,
there is a more robust life taking place
on the street and in other public spaces. Police are tasked with
policing public spaces. Thus, residen-
tially crowded communities have less privacy in general and
more behavior is on display for others in
the community as well as law enforcement.
The second part of this discussion focuses more on overt
discrimination. The criminological literature
on racial profiling demonstrates that traffic stops, vehicle
searches for contraband and pretext stop
and frisks (in New York City) are much more likely to target
people of color. In addition, issues of pov-
erty, bail, attorney representation and resources more broadly
play a role in this discussion as well.
Noah Fritz
Why is it important to examine the disproportion among races in
the incarcer-
ated population?

72. The simple answer in a democracy and a constitutionally driven
society is that
it remains imperative to ensure fairness and justice. Given the
reality of cur-
rent incarceration rates, and the undisputed disparity on racial
grounds, the
criminal justice system and American society at large must
continue to ques-
tion and reflect upon our institutional practices that generate
these results.
The comparison between sentencing outcomes between powder
and crack
cocaine users is a primary example. Even if minority offenders
have a greater
propensity for street crime as some would claim, it is imperative
for criminology and jurisprudence to
figure out why the CRJ [criminal justice system]discriminates—
in a statistical sense not necessarily in
a political sense—against a major sector of our society.
Developing social and educational programs
that ensures equal opportunities and upward mobility is the
cornerstone of our democracy. Any
program or policy that systematically diminishes the American
Dream should be greatly scrutinized.
Courtesy of Erik Fritsvold
Courtesy of Noah Fritz
(continued)
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 121 7/5/13 4:18 PM

73. Chapter Summary CHAPTER 4
In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
(continued)
Joshua Gryniewicz
How are race and ethnicity represented in the different
CeaseFire communi-
ties impacted by crime? How are age and gender represented?
CeaseFire works with those individuals who are at the highest
risk for shoot-
ing and/or being shot themselves based on statistical data. They
are predomi-
nately young men, ages 16 to 25, who are African American or
Latino, with
some gang involvement and most likely a past arrest. Our
program is focused
on those individuals who are the most difficult to reach and
those outside
conventional social service networks.
CeaseFire is a data-driven model. Through a combination of
statistical information and street
knowledge, CeaseFire identifies where we need to concentrate
our efforts, focus our resources,
and intervene in violence. This data guides us to the
communities more impacted. It provides a
picture of those individuals at the highest-risk for violence.
And, most importantly, it shows us how
we can intervene.
What might the relationships be among these social factors and
the victims of these crimes? Are
there any differences between offenders and victims?
For this form of community violence where CeaseFire

74. intervenes, there is very little demographic
difference between individuals doing the shooting and those
getting shot.
Jody Lewen and David Cowan
What accounts for the high number of incarcerated Black men?
Jody Lewen: Innumerable, sometimes very subtle, cultural
factors contrib-
ute to the high incarceration rate for Black men. For example,
overpolicing
Black men in particular can result in higher arrest rates, but
even that comes
from a societal bias that views Black men as particularly
sinister. Studies have
also demonstrated patterns of bias in the conviction and
sentencing of Blacks
as compared to others. (See the experiments of Dr. Jennifer
Eberhardt on
this topic.) In addition, the physical environment can also be a
factor. For
example, people who live in a more urban environment are more
likely to be
observed doing drugs than people in a suburban environment,
where garages
and back yards are plentiful enough to hide such activity.
Finally, Black men
grow up with disproportionately high rates of poverty, under-
education, and
lack of employment opportunities, which make them more
vulnerable to
being drawn into crime to begin with.
What is the demographic makeup of students involved in the
College Program?
What types of crimes are they serving time for?

75. David Cowen: Students in the College Program range in age
from 18 to 70 years old. Approximately
50% are Black, 25% are White, 17% are Latino, and 8% are
Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American.
Students are serving sentences from a couple of years to
possible life sentences with the possibil-
ity of parole. Their commitment offences are extremely diverse
and could be violent or nonviolent,
habitual, or first-time offences. PUP [Prison University Project]
is not in the practice of asking why
students are incarcerated because it bears little on the necessity
for an education, nor does PUP
discriminate against students because of their commitment
offences.
Courtesy of
Joshua Gryniewicz
Courtesy of Jody Lewen
Courtesy of David Cowan
coL82305_04_c04_091-122.indd 122 7/5/13 4:18 PM
17
The Five Minds for the Future
HOWARD GARDNER
Graduate School of Education, Harvard University

76. At the start of the third millennium, we are well attuned to
considerations
of “the future.” In conceptualizing the future, I refer to trends
whose
existence is widely acknowledged: the increasing power of
science and
technology; the interconnectedness of the world in economic,
cultural, and
social terms; and the incessant circulation and intermingling of
human
beings of diverse backgrounds and aspirations.
As one who has witnessed discussions of the future all over the
world,
I can attest that belief in the power of education—for good or
for ill—is
ubiquitous. We have little difficulty in seeing education as an
enterprise—
indeed, the enterprise—for shaping the mind of the future.
What kind of minds should we be cultivating for the future?
Five types
stand out to me as being particularly urgent at the present time.
One by
one, let me bring them onto center stage.
I. The Disciplined Mind
In English, the word “discipline” has two distinct connotations.
First, we
speak of the mind as having mastered one or more disciplines—
arts, crafts,
professions, scholarly pursuits. By rough estimates, it takes
approximately
a decade for an individual to learn a discipline well enough so
that he or

77. she can be considered an expert or master. Perhaps at one time,
an individual
could rest on her laurels once such disciplinary mastery has
been initially
achieved. No longer! Disciplines themselves change, ambient
conditions
change, as do the demands on individuals who have achieved
initial mastery.
One must continue to educate oneself and others over
succeeding decades.
Such hewing of expertise can only be done if an individual
possesses dis-
Schools: Studies in Education, vol. 5, nos. 1/2 (Spring/Fall
2008).
� 2008 by Howard Gardner. Reprinted by permission of the
author.
18 Schools, Spring/Fall 2008
cipline—in the second sense of the word. That is, one needs
continually to
practice in a disciplined way if one is to remain at the top of
one’s game.
We first acquire a “disciplined mind” in school, though
relatively few of
us go on to become academic disciplinarians. The rest of us
master dis-
ciplines that are not, strictly speaking, “scholarly,” yet the need
to master
a “way of thinking” applies to the entire range of workers—
whether it be

78. lawyers, engineers, crafts persons, or business professionals
involved with
personnel, marketing, sales, or management. Such education
may take in
formal classes or on the job, explicitly or implicitly. In the end,
a form
of mastery will be achieved, one that must continue to be
refined over
the years.
Nowadays, the mastery of more than one discipline is at a
premium.
We value those who are interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or
transdisci-
plinary. But these claims must be cashed in. We would not
value a bilingual
person unless he or she can speak more than one language. By
the same
token, the claim of pluridisciplinarity (if you’ll excuse the
neologism) only
makes sense if a person has genuinely mastered more than one
discipline
and can integrate them. For most of us, the attainment of
multiple per-
spectives is a more reasonable goal.
II. The Synthesizing Mind
Nobel laureate in physics Murray Gell-Mann, an avowed
multidiscipli-
narian, has made an intriguing claim about our times. He asserts
that, in
the twenty-first century, the most valued mind will be the
synthesizing
mind: the mind that can survey a wide range of sources, decide
what is

79. important and worth paying attention to, and then put this
information
together in ways that make sense to oneself and, ultimately, to
others as
well.
Gell-Mann is on to something important. Information has never
been
in short supply. But with the advent of new technologies and
media, most
notably the Internet, vast, seemingly indigestible amounts of
information
now deluge us around the clock. Shrewd triage becomes an
imperative.
Those who can synthesize well for themselves will rise to the
top of their
pack, and those whose syntheses make sense to others will be
invaluable
teachers, communicators, and leaders.
Let’s take an example from business. Suppose that you are an
executive
and your firm is considering the acquisition of a new company
in an area
that seems important but about which you and your immediate
associates
know little. Your goal is to acquire enough information so that
you and
Howard Gardner 19
your board can make a judicious decision, and you need to do so
in the
next two months. The place to begin is with any existing