A-grade Ethnicity And Crime Essay (a-level) (i Received An A Grade In This Subject)

There are three main sources of statistics on ethnicity and criminalisation. The first is official statistics. These show ethnic differences in the likelihood of being involved in the CJS. For example, blacks are seven times more likely than whites to be stopped and searched, and five times more likely to be in prison. However, victim surveys and self-report studies strive deeper into ethnicity and offending.

Next, victim surveys ask individuals to say what crimes they have been victims of. Occasionally, they ask respondents to identify the ethnicity if the person who committed the crime against them. For example, in the case of 'mugging', black people are more likely to be identified as offenders. However, victim surveys have limitations as they rely on retrospective data. Also, white victims tend to 'over identify' blacks as offenders. What is more, victim surveys exclude corporate crimes, therefore, tell us nothing about ethnicity and white collar crime. They also exclude under 16's.

Next, self-report studies as individuals to disclose crimes they have committed. Graham and Bowling (1995) found that blacks and whites had almost identical rates of offending, while Asians had much lower rates. Other self-report studies show similar patterns, discrediting the stereotype of blacks as being more likely than whites to offend.

Overall, the evidence on ethnicity and offending is inconsistent. OS and VS indicate higher rates of offending by blacks, but SRS don't. RACISM AND THE CJS

Phillips and Bowling (2007) note that there have been many allegations of oppressive policing of minority communities including: mass stop and search operations, armed raids, deaths in custody and a failure to respond effectively to racist violence. They note that MEG's are more likely to think that they are over-policed and under-protected. What is more, black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than whites. Similarly, Asians are three times more likely to be stopped and searched than other people under the terrorism act 2000. However, only a tiny proportion of the stops result in an arrest or prosecution.

Next, the arrest rate for black people is over three times the rate for whites. However, once arrested, both blacks and Asians are less likely than white people to receive a caution.

The Crown prosecution service decides whether a case brought forward by the police should be prosecuted. The CPS is more likely to drop cases against minorities than whites. What is more, blacks and Asian defendants are less likely to be found guilty than whites.

Jail sentences are given to a greater proportion of black offenders than white or Asian offenders. Hood (1992) found that even when the seriousness of the offence and previous convictions are taken into account, black men were 5% more likely to be jailed. Also, blacks are five times more likely to be in prison what whites. Furthermore, blacks and Asians are more likely to be serving lengthier sentences compared to whites. Also, when awaiting trail, ethnic minorities are less likely to be granted bail.

Official statistics on the criminal justice process show differences between ethnic groups. There are two explanations for these differences.

The first is left realism. Lea and Young (1993) argue that ethnic differences in the statistics reflect real differences in the levels of offending. They see crime as the product of relative deprivation, subculture and marginalisation. Also, racism has led to the marginalisation and economic exclusion of ethnic minorities. The media's emphasis on consumerism also promotes relative deprivation by setting materialistic goals that many members of minority ethnic groups cannot reach through legitimate means due to discrimination.

Lea and Young recognise that racist policing often leads to the unjustified criminalisation of some members of minority groups. However, even if the police do act in racist ways, they argue that it is unlikely to account for the ethnic differences in statistics. Therefore, Lea and Young conclude that the statistics represent real differences in offending between ethnic groups.

Secondly, Neo-Marxists such as, Gilroy (1982) and Hall et al (1979) reject the view that official statistics reflect real life. Rather, they are the outsiders a social construction that stereotype minorities as more criminal than whites. Gilroy argues that the idea of black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of Asians and African Caribbean's. Therefore, these groups aren't any more criminal than any other ethnic group.

However, as the CJS acts on these racist stereotypes, minorities are prosecuted more, and therefore, appear more frequently in OCrimeS. Furthermore, Gilroy argues that minority ethnic crime is a form of political resistance against a racist society, and it has its roots in earlier struggles against British imperialism. This is because, most blacks and Asians in the UK originated from former British colonies, where their anti-colonial struggles taught them how to resist oppression such as, rioting. Therefore, when they found themselves facing racism, they adopted similar forms of struggle to defend themselves, but their political battle was criminalised by the British state. So Gilroy's view is like that of critical criminology, which argues that most of the crime committed by the working-class is an act of resistance to capitalism.

Hall et al argues that the 1970s saw a moral panic over 'black muggers' that served the interests of capitalism in dealing with the crisis. He argues that the ruling class usually are capable of ruling society through consent. However, in times of crisis, these become more difficult. In the early 1970s, British capitalism faced crisis', such as, high inflation, strikes and unemployment. They also saw a media-driven moral panic about the supposed growth of 'new-crime' - mugging that was apparently committed by black youths.

However, according to Hall et al, there was no evidence of a significant increase in this crime. The rise of this moral panic about mugging as a 'black' crime at the same time as the crisis of capitalism was no coincidence. The myth of the young black mugger served as a scapegoat to distract the attention from the true cause of society's problems such as, unemployment. Moreover, by presenting black youths as a threat to society, the moral panic served to divide the working-class on racial grounds to weaken opposition to capitalism, as well as winning popular consent for overcoming and supressing the opposition. However, Hall et al don't believe that black crime was only a product of media labelling. The crisis of capitalism was increasingly marginalising black youth unemployment, and this drove certain people into petty crime to survive.

However, Hall et al are inconsistent. They claim that black street crime was not increasing, but also that it was indeed increasing due to unemployment. They don't explain how the crisis led to a moral panic, or that the public were actually blaming crime on blacks.