Black people are over represented.

• They make up 2.8% of the population, but 11% of the prison population

• Asians make up 4.7% of the population, but 6% of the prison population

However, these statistics don’t tell us whether members of one ethnic

minority are more likely than another to commit crime in the first place.

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF STATISTICS

Victim Surveys:

These involve asking individuals to say what crimes they have been victims of (usually in

the last 12 months) and ask them to identify the ethnicity of the actor. They have found

that blacks are over represented as ‘muggers’ and show a great deal of crime is intra-

ethnic. The British Crime Survey (BCS) (2007) found 90% of crimes where the victim

was white, at least one of the offenders was too.

Limitations:

• Rely on the victims memory: Bowling and Phillips say white victims may “over identify

blacks”

• Only cover personal crimes

• Exclude under 16s – the minority ethnic groups have a higher proportion of young

people

• Exclude white collar and corporate crime

• Unrepresentative

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF STATISTICS

Self-report Studies

These ask individuals to disclose their own dishonest and violent

behaviour.

Graham and Bowling conducted a study with a sample of 2500 and found

blacks and whites had very similar rates of offending – other ethnicities

had lower rates.

Sharp and Budd note the 2003 Offending, Crime and Justice survey of

12000 people found whites and those of ‘mixed’ ethnic origins were

most likely to say they had committed an offence. They also found 27%

of ‘mixed’ ethnic individuals said they had used drugs in the last year.

(Class A drug use was much higher among whites)

Self-report studies challenge the stereotypes of black people as being more

likely to offend than white people. However, they are inconsistent: the

higher rates of offending by blacks isn’t borne out of these studies.

ETHNICITY, RACISM AND THE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM (CJS)

Policing:

Philips and Bowling note since the 1970s there have been many allegations

of oppressive policing of minority ethnic communities

Stop and Search

Members of minority ethnic groups are more likely than whites to be

stopped and searched. Police can use this power if they have

‘reasonable suspicion’ – blacks are 7x more likely to be stopped and

search (only a small proportion end in arrest).

Under the Terrorism Act, police can stop and search people whether they

have reasonable suspicion or not – this resulted in Asians being 3x

more likely to be stopped and searched. Phillips and Bowling note

members of ethnic communities are more likely to think they are “over

policed and under protected” and they have limited faith in the police.

ETHNICITY, RACISM AND THE CJS

Explaining stop and search patterns

There are three possible reasons:

• Police racism: (It’s worth reading up about the Stephen Lawrence

murder and the Macpherson report) Phillips and Bowling point out

many officers hold negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities as

criminals. This leads to deliberate targeting for stop and searches.

These views are upheld by the ‘canteen culture’.

• Ethnic differences in offending:

Low discretion: police act on relevant information about an offence

High discretion: police use their stereotypes when acting;

discrimination is likely

• Demographic factors: ethnic minorities are over-represented in the

population groups who are more likely to be stopped (e.g. the young,

unemployed which regardless of their ethnicity are most likely to be

stopped)

ETHNICITY, RACISM AND THE CJS

Arrests and Cautions: The arrest rate for black people is 3.6x the rate for

whites. However, they are less likely to receive a caution. They are more

likely to deny an offence and exercise their right to legal advice. This

highlights their distrust in the police.

Prosecution: The Crown Prosecution Survey (CPS) are more likely to drop

cases against ethnic minorities. Phillips and Bowling note this may be

due to the cases being presented to the CPS by the police are based on

racist stereotypes.

Trial: Black people are more likely to elect for trial before a jury in the

Crown Court where they face tougher sentences because they don’t

trust the police.

Convictions: Black and Asian defendants are less likely to be found guilty.

In 2006/7, 60% whites, 52% blacks, 44% Asians were found guilty.

ETHNICITY, RACISM AND THE CJS

Sentencing: Black people are most likely (68%) to receive custodial

sentences whereas whites and Asians are more likely to receive

community sentences. Hood’s study of 5 crown courts found black men

are 5% more likely to receive a custodial sentence and on average are

given a 3 month longer sentence.

Pre-sentence reports: Hudson and Bramhall found that these allow for

unwitting discrimination. They found Asian offenders were less

comprehensive and suggested that they were less remorseful. These

places bias in the context of the ‘demonising’ of Muslims.

Prison: in 2007, one-quarter of the population in prison who were male were

from a minority ethnic groups (15% were black, 7% were Asian). Blacks

are 5x more likely to be in prison than whites and has to serve longer

sentences. In the USA, 2 out of 5 prisoners held in local prisons are

black and 1 out of 5 were Hispanic.

EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCES IN OFFENDING

Large scale migration began in the 1950s and until the 1970s, minority

ethnic communities has lower rates of offending. But, from the mid

1970s, ‘black criminality’ increasingly came to be seen as a problem. By

contrast, in the 1990s, Asian crime began to be viewed as a problem

and the events of 9/11 supports the idea that Asians were an ‘enemy

within’ that threatened public order and safety.

LEFT REALISTS

Lea and Young argue ethnic differences in the statistics reflect real

differences in the levels of offending by different ethnic groups. They

believe crime is the product of relative deprivation, subcultures and

marginalisation.

Racism has led to the marginalisation and economic exclusion of ethnic

minorities who face higher levels of unemployment, poverty and poor

housing. Also, the media’s emphasis on consumerism promotes a

sense of relative deprivation by setting materialistic goals that many

members of minority groups are unable to reach by legitimate means.

One response to relative deprivation is the formation of delinquent

subcultures. This produces higher levels of utilitarian crime as a means

of coping with it. Furthermore, these groups are marginalised and have

no organisations to represent their interest. This leads to frustration

which is expressed through non-utilitarian crime. (link to Merton’s

‘strain to anomie’ and Cohen’s status frustration theories)

LEFT REALISTS

Lea and Young acknowledge that the police often act in racist ways and the

results are unjustified. But, they don’t believe discriminatory policing

fully explains the differences. Over 90% of crimes know to the police are

reported by the public so they can’t account for the ethnic differences

even if they act in discriminatory ways. Also, blacks have a higher

criminalisation rate than Asians, so the police would have to be very

selective in their racism.

Thus, they conclude that the statistics represent real differences in levels

of offending between ethnic groups and that these are caused by real

differences in levels of relative deprivation and marginalisation.

CRITICISMS

• Asian arrest rates may be lower than blacks as police stereotype the

two groups differently (they see Asians as passive and blacks as

dangerous – although, Asians may now be seen as dangerous since

9/11)

On the other hand, Neo-Marxists believe statistics are a social construct

resulting from racist labelling and discrimination in the CJS. Two neo-

Marxists illustrate this view…

GILROY: THE MYTH OF BLACK CRIMINALITY

Gilroy believes black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes. In

reality, these groups are no more criminal than any other. But, because

the police act on these racist stereotypes, ethnic minorities come to be

greater in the official statistic numbers.

In his view, ethnic minority crime can be seen as a form of political

resistance against a racist society and this resistance has its roots in

earlier struggles against British Imperialism (similar to critical

criminology). Their anti-imperialist struggles taught them how to resist

oppression through riots for example, and when they faced racism in

Britain they adopted the same forms of struggle to defend themselves.

CRITICISMS

Lea and Young criticise Gilroy:

• First generation immigrants in the 1950s/60s were law abiding citizens

so it is unlikely they passed down a tradition of anti-colonial struggle

• Most crime is intra-ethnic, so it can’t be seen as an anti-colonial

struggle against racism. Gilroy has romanticised street crime as

revolutionary

• Asian crime rates are similar to or lower to whites. If gilroy is right, then

police are only racist towards blacks, which seems unlikely

HALL ET AL: POLICING THE CRISIS

Hall et al argue the 1970s saw a moral panic over black ‘muggers’ that

served the interests of capitalism. They argue the ruling class are

normally able to rule the subordinate classes through consent, but in

times of crisis this becomes more difficult.

In the early 1970s, British capitalism faced a crisis of high inflation and

rising unemployment which were provoking widespread industrial

unrest and strikes. At such times, capitalist opposition grew, so the

ruling class may have needed to use force to maintain control.

The 1970s also saw media driven moral panic about a new crime –

‘mugging’. Hall et al argue this was a new name for an old crime, and

there is no evidence of this crime at the time.

POLICING THE CRISIS

Hall et al argue this moral panic was no coincidence – they think it is linked

to the crisis. The black mugger myth served as a scapegoat to distract

attention away from the true cause of problems (capitalism).

But, Hall et al don’t argue black crime as a sole produce of media and

police labelling. The crisis of capitalism was increasingly marginalising

black youth through unemployment and this drove some into crime to

survive.

CRITICISMS

• Downes and Rock argue they are inconsistent in claiming that black

street crime was not rising, but also that it was rising due to

unemployment

• They don’t show how the capitalist crisis led to a moral panic or provide

evidence that the public were panicking or blaming crime on blacks

• Left realists argue fears about mugging are realistic, not panicky

ETHNICITY AND VICTIMISATION

More recently, sociologists have taken an interest in issues like the racist

victimisation of ethnic minorities. This occurs when an individual is

selected as a target because of their race, ethnicity or religion. It isn’t

new, but the Stephen Lawrence murder and subsequently the

Macpherson report brought it into focus.

Information on racist victimisation comes from victim surveys and police

recorded statistics which cover:

• Racist Incidents

• Racially or Religiously Aggravated Offences

EXTENT AND RISK OF VICTIMISATION

• The police recorded 61000 racist incidents in England and Wales in

2006/7

• Most incidents are unreported. The BCS estimates 184000 racially

motivated incidents in 2006/7

• Police recorded 42600 racially or religiously aggravated offences in

2006/7. 106000 were prosecuted or cautioned

The risk of being a victim varies by ethnic group. The 2006/7 BCS found

people from mixed ethnic groups were 36% more likely to be a victim

(blacks 27%, Asians 25%, whites 24%). However, it could be due to other

factors such as being young, male and unemployed (ethnic groups have a

high proportion of this). But, some of these factors are largely due to

discrimination.

But, these statistics don’t capture the victims’ experience of it. Samson and

Phillips note racist victimisation tends to be ongoing over time (repeated).

RESPONSES TO VICTIMISATION

This ranges from situational crime prevention to fireproof doors to self-

defence campaigns. Such responses need to be understood in the

context of accusation under-protection by the police.

The Macpherson report found professional incompetence, institutional

racism and the failure of leadership by senior offices.