Discrimination Essay, Research Paper

Specifying Racism and the

Troubles of Proving Discrimination

Our group is taking the place that the perceptual experience of the condemnable justness system as being racialist is a myth. Since this averment can be interpreted in many ways, it is necessary to stipulate what it means and does non intend.

First, we are traveling to explicate that there is racial bias and favoritism within the condemnable justness system, in that there are persons, both white and minorities, who make determinations, at least in portion, on the footing of race. We do non believe that the system is characterized by bias and favoritism against minorities & # 8220 ; systematic. & # 8221 ; Individual instances appear to reflect racial bias and favoritism by the wrongdoer, the victim, the constabulary, the prosecuting officer, the justice, or prison and word functionaries. But professing single instances of prejudice is far different from professing permeant racial favoritism.

There are surveies that argue that the grounds at most determination points fail to demo any overall racial consequence, in that the per centum results for minorities and Whites are non really different. There is grounds, nevertheless, that some single determination shapers ( for illustration, constabulary officers, Judgess ) are more likely to give & # 8220 ; breaks & # 8221 ; to Whites than to minorities. it appears, nevertheless, that there is an equal inclination for other single determination shapers to prefer minorities over Whites. This & # 8220 ; call offing out consequence & # 8221 ; consequences in surveies that find no overall racial consequence. It is of import to observe that though racial favoritism has occurred legion single instances against minorities and Whites, there is no systematic prejudice against minorities.

Second, if one defines racism as a witting attitude or witting behaviour by no grounds that most persons in the system make determinations on the footing of race. In short, the definition of racism frequently predetermines the reply to the inquiry & # 8220 ; is the condemnable justness system racialist? & # 8221 ;

Furthermore, to reason that there is no systematic prejudice against minorities in formal determinations does non talk to the issue of whether the constabulary are more likely to & # 8220 ; speak down & # 8221 ; to minorities or to demo them less regard. The fact that a police officer may name a 40-year-old minority adult male a & # 8220 ; boy & # 8221 ; does non needfully intend that the officer will be more likely to collar that adult male ( or, if he does, that his determination is based primar

ily on the racialist stereotype ) . Harassment and indifference to of import cultural demands could be, by non being consistently reflected in formal processing determinations.

Third, the averment that the condemnable justness system is non racist does non turn to the grounds why minorities appear to perpetrate offenses at higher rates than Whites even before coming into contact with the condemnable justness system. It possibly that racial favoritism in American society has been responsible for conditions that lead to higher rates of piquing by minorities, but that possibility does non bear on the inquiry of whether the condemnable justness system discriminates against minorities.

Therefore the inquiry of whether the condemnable justness system is racist must non be confused with that of whether minorities commit offenses at a higher rate than Whites because of favoritism in employment, lodging, instruction, and so away. It may be that racial favoritism produces a spread in piquing between minorities and white wrongdoers move through the condemnable justness system. If the spread dies non increase after the point at which offenses occur, the system can non be held responsible for the spread that consequences at the terminal of the system ( prison ) .

Fourth, the averment that the condemnable justness system is non racist does non deny that racial bias and favoritism have existed in or even been the dominant force in the design and operation of the condemnable justness system in the yesteryear. There is grounds proposing that racism did pervade the condemnable justness system in earlier periods of American history, particularly in the South. The grounds sing northern metropoliss, nevertheless, does non back up the favoritism in the condemnable tribunals of nineteenth-century Philadelphia & # 8220 ; or so for those in any northern metropolis in the same period. But the inquiry today concerns racial bias and favoritism.

Fifth, I am non proposing that the nondiscrimination theory has been proven by the bing literature. But certainly the load of cogent evidence remainders on those who hold that the system is racist. Though I do believe that the weight of the bing grounds supports the nondiscrimination theory instead than the favoritism theory, I do non believe that the instance for the nondiscrimination theory has been proven. The belief that the condemnable justness system is racialist is a myth in the sense that there is deficient grounds to back up this place.

384