Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System?

[FSUBecker]

The out-of-place doctrine sounds completely discriminatory to me. How is it applied? If someone is merely "out of place" I can think of no legitimate reason to stop him. If someone is loitering or acting suspicious, that's reason enough to stop him without an additional policy, isn't it?

Yes acting suspicious usually meets the requirements for the probable cause for a search. In terms of the out of place doctrine I am trying to find (so far quite unsuccessfully) the supreme court case that allows for this tactic.....but when I find it I will pass it along.

[FSUBecker]

Here is the definition for the out of place doctrine out of one of Criminology text books: allows the basis for a stop if that person is in an area where another race predominates.

This opens the door for a disproportionate number of African-Americans being stopped, because of the fact that predominately white neighborhoods are relatively common. And the court case I was confused about, the court case I was referring to was Whren v Untied States which allows officers to use minor traffic violations as a reason to stop someone suspected of criminal activity.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

fsu, you begin by presenting a black man arrested for drug possession and a concealed weapon.  "though what happen before, during, and after the car stop and search are unclear..."  and you think that race may have played a role although "details now show the police officer had probable cause for both the car stop and the search".  so where is the problem and exactly what am i missing?  is it the police fault that the man was in possession of drugs and a concealed weapon?  are you insinuating that this is a case of dwb, driving while black??  the few details you provide don't make this case or again am i missing something?  as for the uci mr d in correct in noting that whites and hispanics are lumped together, still just a glance reveals that blacks accounted for 29% of the arrests while constituting what 15% of the population!  you consider this to be evidence of discrimination while i see it as evidence of criminality.  the stats don't speak to juvenile and  adult criminal histories nor other extenuating circumstances that influence plea bargaining and sentencing.  again mr d is correct, black activism and white fear was the basis for the disparate sentencing guidelines re crack vs powder.  the law did not result in more arrests, the attached violence demanded a law enforcement response and the public nature of the crime made arrests easy.  again this was demanded by both black and white communities.  still this is only discriminatory if you can demonstrate that whites arrested and convicted for crack possession, possessing similar backgrounds and surrounding circumstances are treated markedly different!  no the system is not discriminatory by design and yes any "system" comprised of people will manifest to some degree the frailties and corruptions inherent to people.  basically, don't do crime and you won't do time.  are you seeking a discussion on the moral, ethical and legal implications of profiling?? 

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

FSU, you don't deny that the Black arrest rate is a better reflection of Black criminality than anything else? In a perfectly PC liberal world (not calling you a lib) the Black arrest and imprisonment rates would correspond with the overall % of Blacks in the US population but we live in the real world and it doesn't.

That link is from the latest UCR, Uniform Crime Report, data from arrests. Here whites make up almost 70% of the arrests in 2006 with African-Americans only making up 28%. With the exception of murder, robbery, and gambling offenses the number of whites arrested FAR exceeds the number of African Americans arrest. If you go back this same trend is apparent throughout the last decade. Even though whites are being arrested at an exceedingly higher rate than African Americans, African-Americans still make up, I think at last poll, was 48% of the prison population while only making up around 25-30% of annual arrests.

I share Grumpy's dismay that this was your first reaction to those stats or at least the one you felt was most important.

[FSUBecker]

In terms of your first response to the issue about the player on our football team, I merely mentioned that because it acted as the catalyst that brought up the issue of discrimination, in the end the facts of the case do point the traffic stop and search to be legit, but like I said I was mentioning because when the facts where still hazy, I questioned whether or not race played a role, in the end it did not I will concede that.

But it seems like you see the disparities in US prison populations as evidence of criminality in the minorities who are over represented. But what causes his heighten criminality?

And in terms of your response where you say "the stats don't speak to juvenile and  adult criminal histories nor other extenuating circumstances that influence plea bargaining and sentencing" it would be impossible to go through all of the extenuating circumstances and all of the pleas and bargaining associated with the justice system but we can look at the jail population, who would be less likely to be effected by criminal histories because of the fact that misdemeanor crimes are less serious and could help account for some of the plea bargaining you brought up (ie. pleaing down from a felony to a misdemeanor). When looking at jail populations the same disparity is found with 46% of the population being made up of African-Americans.

 

[FSUBecker]

[quote author=again mr d is correct, black activism and white fear was the basis for the disparate sentencing guidelines re crack vs powder.  the law did not result in more arrests, the attached violence demanded a law enforcement response and the public nature of the crime made arrests easy.
[/quote]

You are correct here, the crack law that created the disparity did not result in more arrests but it did punish users of crack, which at the time the public say as poor inner city African-Americans, more than users of cocaine. The problem is minus baking soda, the route of administration, and the cheaper price of crack, they are the exact same drug. However, with the knee jerk reaction of the so called 'crack epidemic' along with law enforcement mainly targeting open air drug markets in the inner city, African-Americans where more likely to be arrested and, if convicted, be sentance to jail longer than users of cocaine, which because of its high price, was usually limited to white middle and upper class citizens.   

[Peter1469]

Here are some of the arguments made to congress in 1992.

http://www.ussc.gov/crack/APPNDXB.HTM

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

qualities such as addiction, marketability and attached violence are/were very different.  the knee jerk reaction to the so called crack epidemic vs open air drug markets!  another govt created illusion designed to keep the black man down?  yes if your standing out on the corner selling/buying crack you run a high risk of arrest??  whose fault is that?  it is a lot easier to make an arrest when the crime is committed in plain sight as opposed to behind closed doors.  do the offenders have any responsibility in your equation of justice??  46% of the incarcerated population is black but this is in no way indicative of cultural criminality??  why did you raise the fsu athlete at all, being that it is not in any way representative of your argument??  just curious are you a crj major and do you have any real world experience in the field?  please don't give me your life story.   

[FSUBecker]

qualities such as addiction, marketability and attached violence are/were very different.  the knee jerk reaction to the so called crack epidemic vs open air drug markets!  another govt created illusion designed to keep the black man down?  yes if your standing out on the corner selling/buying crack you run a high risk of arrest??  whose fault is that?  it is a lot easier to make an arrest when the crime is committed in plain sight as opposed to behind closed doors.  do the offenders have any responsibility in your equation of justice??  46% of the incarcerated population is black but this is in no way indicative of cultural criminality??  why did you raise the fsu athlete at all, being that it is not in any way representative of your argument??  just curious are you a crj major and do you have any real world experience in the field?  please don't give me your life story.   

I am not sure about the marketability differences, but in terms of the greater risk of addiction with crack vs cocaine, to begin with if you look at self-reporting surveys on drug use, a vast majority of crack (and cocaine users) are occasional users and under 10% are addicted. Overall the risk of becoming dependant to an illicit drug is insanely low and unlikely. And when politicians talk about how crack's addictiveness, what they are refering too is the reinforcing qualities crack has over cocaine, because of the more intense high that is associated with smoking a drug opposed to any other route of administration.

And I hope you can see the difference in focusing on policing open air drug markets and simply driving by and seeing someone selling drugs. All over the country agencies target low level dealers, who are easily replaced and whose arrest makes no impact on the amount of drugs in that community. What I was saying was that this policy doesnt work and in order to really make an impact on drug supplies is to go after regional distributers.

And for the second time I only mentioned the FSU athlete to explain my train in thought. Like I said the early reaction from some in this community brought into question whether or not race played an issue. Sorry I didn't make that clear in the original post. And I am a criminal Justice/criminology major 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

so in conclusion crack and powder are both the same and different, present drug policy is ineffective because in does not target supply and distribution,  and this is discriminatory because minorities and the socially under privileged violate this law more than the privilged (whites)...oh yes and the fsu athlete is in noway connected to any of this other than it started your train of thought!  what do you envision your career in criminal justice to consist of and do you have some experience already?

[FSUBecker]

so in conclusion crack and powder are both the same and different, present drug policy is ineffective because in does not target supply and distribution,  and this is discriminatory because minorities and the socially under privileged violate this law more than the privilged (whites)...oh yes and the fsu athlete is in noway connected to any of this other than it started your train of thought!  what do you envision your career in criminal justice to consist of and do you have some experience already?

First, if you believe our drug policy is effective you are either very uniformed or ignorant. The Drug War is discriminatory because it many times aimed at minorities in the inner city. This isn't a case of of minorities and socially under privileged violating the law any more or less than whites, but the fact is that through the use of the out of place doctrine and a number of drug agencies making a high number of arrests in order meet federally or state mandated quotas, marginalized populations are targeted. And with all this talk of experience do you have any experience in the field?

[wow]

Here is the definition for the out of place doctrine out of one of Criminology text books: allows the basis for a stop if that person is in an area where another race predominates.

This opens the door for a disproportionate number of African-Americans being stopped, because of the fact that predominately white neighborhoods are relatively common. And the court case I was confused about, the court case I was referring to was Whren v Untied States which allows officers to use minor traffic violations as a reason to stop someone suspected of criminal activity.

I had an appointment in a predominately black neighborhood one Saturday. I had trouble finding this business, I was driving around like a stooge looking for it.
I was pulled over 3 times within one hour by 3 different black Houston cops.
I had no problem with it.
I thought to myself: Here is a white guy driving a nice sports car around a black neighborhood like he is looking for something.
I guess if I were trying to sell illegal drugs and the cops were preventing me from doing so, I would be upset and would use anything for my own self-defense, like racism.

 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

so in conclusion crack and powder are both the same and different, present drug policy is ineffective because in does not target supply and distribution,  and this is discriminatory because minorities and the socially under privileged violate this law more than the privilged (whites)...oh yes and the fsu athlete is in noway connected to any of this other than it started your train of thought!  what do you envision your career in criminal justice to consist of and do you have some experience already?

First, if you believe our drug policy is effective you are either very uniformed or ignorant. The Drug War is discriminatory because it many times aimed at minorities in the inner city. This isn't a case of of minorities and socially under privileged violating the law any more or less than whites, but the fact is that through the use of the out of place doctrine and a number of drug agencies making a high number of arrests in order meet federally or state mandated quotas, marginalized populations are targeted. And with all this talk of experience do you have any experience in the field?

 
jr i have not said what i believe or do not believe leaving you both "uninformed or ignorant"a little redundant don't ya think they got dictionaries at your house of higher learning??  if this is proving too stressful or upsetting it has not been my intention, rather i have only asked questions.  you began this thread with an inane story that has become representative of your opinions.  you have provided no argument for systemic discrimination and if policy is discriminatory in effect, you have failed to demonstrate!  we have wandered from wondering whether some bias played a role in the fsu athlete's arrest, then jumping on a train to discriminatory criminal justice system due to a law that you oppose but can not demonstrate that the law has been unevenly applied.  i guess now we have stopped at some vague critique of drug policy and the "war on drugs" in general.  is there was there ever a point you were trying to make or are you trying to remember some dream you had?  addressing you latest greatest point by point...
1  this country has never conducted a war on drugs, just a slogan.
2  yes drug policy is ineffective, not because it targets inner city offenders but due to the unwillingness to stop the flow of drugs coming into this country.
3  so your exp consists of sitting on your ass in class and lamenting the realities of life...shit rolls down hill so it is best not to be standing at the bottom of hill.
4  with regard to ignorance, it is you that will see a 46% rate of incarceration and attribute this to discriminatory practice but never provide any evidence, never look inside the numbers and never acknowledge the responsibility of the offender.  i guess the argument is if the govt did not make crack illegal i wouldn't have been committing a crime and therefore would not be doing time so the problem is the law and not my lawless behavior?  does that about sum it up? 
in conclusion you present as an intellectual circle jerk.  please tell me that you are not on student loan!
         

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Ouch....If one does not like Grumpy's politics one must still admire his sheer brutality. Good Lord. 

[Vermouth]

Here is the definition for the out of place doctrine out of one of Criminology text books: allows the basis for a stop if that person is in an area where another race predominates.

This opens the door for a disproportionate number of African-Americans being stopped, because of the fact that predominately white neighborhoods are relatively common. And the court case I was confused about, the court case I was referring to was Whren v Untied States which allows officers to use minor traffic violations as a reason to stop someone suspected of criminal activity.

The out of place doctrice is idiotic! If you're in a place where another race predominates, you get stopped??? What are the boundaries of that "place" and what percentage of the population constitutes a "predomination"?

Using a minor traffic violation as a reason to stop someone makes a lot more sense. Unless the police are going to stop every single person for every single traffic violation, we allow them to use their judgment and give them the benefit of their expertise in determining suspicion of criminality. The officer has to back up that suspicion if in fact an arrest is made. While it may happen that individual officers abuse this latitude, it doesn't constitute a discriminatory policy in my opinion.