Crime and Sentencing Disparities
Introduction
Crime and sentencing disparity is a principal social injustice today given that minority groups have been its substance for the longest time (Slyke & Bales, 2012). Sentencing disparity in America and globally has been a major source of controversial debates among the public. The issue of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system generates several societal challenges which in turn affects life’s quality for the affected persons (Deflem, 2017). America is today positioned as the leading country in regard to its utmost incarceration rate given that it owns 25 percent of the global custodial population (Deflem, 2017). It is saddening that more than 65 percent of the incarcerated populace in America is only built by the ethnic minorities mostly blacks and Hispanics (Deflem, 2017). Despite the issue being highlighted as one of the most pressing criminal justice issues, its dominance has continued to increase which does not only affect societal stability but also economic development. The criminality system of justice is obligated to be fair and equal in order to guard the wellness of the country and the rights of every individual (Slyke & Bales, 2012). This paper will be analyzing the root sources of crime and sentencing disparities as the methodology and research design to be applied.
Research Question: What are the key sources of crime and sentencing disparities today?
Hypothesis: Sentencing and crime disparity and is mainly a source of racial and socio-economic status profiling.
Description of the Criminal Issue
There seems to be an operational inequality in the American criminal justice given that racial stereotype and social status plays a role in the sentencing and criminality disparity. The issue of racial sentencing and white collar crimes disparities, when compared to other kinds of crimes, creates some contradicting opinions (Ghandnoosh, 2015). It is apparent that crimes conducted by minorities which are accounted to be aggressive occur as often as other kinds of crimes conducted by white-collar criminalities in the contemporary society today. In fact, it is widely known that white collar crimes conducted by upper-class persons tend to be the most expensive given that they lead to the loss of billion dollars (Ghandnoosh, 2015). While compared to the aggressive or street crimes which tend to be associated with the ethnic minorities white collar crimes are on the rise given that the associated penalties are sentencing is minimal. It is believed that given that white collar are conducted by prominent persons particularly from the white race, they are treated uniquely as compared the violent types because they are nonaggressive and causes fewer threats. It is, however, worth noting that some of these crimes cause undesirable and unrepairable impacts than the minimal violent crimes (Ghandnoosh, 2015).
Sentencing and criminality disparity is mainly fueled by socio-economic status and racial profiling. In that, mostly the identification of delinquency defendants is done on the ground of accent, race and economic status. There is a huge gap in sentencing amid white collar and aggressive and street crimes because white collar criminalities mainly come from upper socio-economic status and the justice system tends to be lenient on them (Slyke & Bales, 2012).Based on social acceptability, white collar criminals are subjected to fewer penalties and sentencing while other crimes that are linked with the ethnic minorities such as the black community are treated rather severely which generates intense social stigma (Deflem, 2017). White collar criminalities are normally performed by individuals with high social personality. This, therefore, means that the occurrence of the nonaggressive crimes is mainly fueled by finances which are mainly conducted by government experts (Van, Benson & Cullen, 2016).
Despite the fact that nonaggressive crimes are performed by social prominent persons without the engagement of violent it is not true that they are associated with fewer threats. Actually, white collar criminalities are associated with more destructive impacts which are psychological and financial. On the other hand, street offenses are less intense despite the fact that they create negative physical effects. The sentencing and rate of the crimes among both types of crimes are mainly fueled by racial and societal status profiling.in that both necessitates some sort of punishment but white collar ones are treated with much care which tends not to deter repeat and the rise of similar crimes (Van, Benson & Cullen, 2016).
Street crimes are mainly conducted by individuals from poor background whose only intention is survival. On the other hand, white collar offenses are conducted by experts in search of more privileges and increased financial stability. Most of the prominent offenders are subjected to bails and home detentions while street offenders are subjected to prolonged sentences that tend to trigger retaliation due to the social stigma and discrimination perception that is created (Van, 2011). The lower sentences for the street offenders fail to fit within the impact that they cause given that the highest populace evades life sentences that suits the threats that they pose to the society. It is accurate to state that given that street crimes involves the stealing of items with less monetary and emotional value long sentencing and severe penalties are unsuitable (Slyke & Bales, 2012). In consideration of the fact that white collar crimes normally incorporates fraud of money that tends not only to affect the existence of the company but the entire community which has invested much in it, lenient sentencing encourages criminalities rise. The street which is minor crimes are severely penalized and this results in high incarceration despite the fact that it is the intensity of the crime that should be considered rather than the race, expertise or the social status of those that are involved (Van, 2011).
The American Criminal Justice System has an obligation of guarding criminal offenders and the victims without accounting for the socio-economic position or race (Ghandnoosh, 2015). The existing criminality and sentencing disparity generate the impression that the justice system tends to value race superiority and socio-economic status rather than the intensity and the effects of the committed crime. It is clear that any kind of crime whether violent or nonviolent normally causes destructive effects on the economy and society. Given that sentencing and crime, disparity is mainly fueled by racial and socio-economic differences street offenders are from low socio-economic backgrounds (Ghandnoosh, 2015). These individuals are mainly without employment while the superior persons possess expertise identities and higher social positions. In this context, both crimes tend to instill fear, emotional loss as well as financial losses which, calls for fairness. Both are most likely to result in death given that emotional effect will create hopelessness and health effects (Walsh, 2016).
Crime and sentencing disparity has been present for decades which has created the perception that the law is mainly violated by the ethnic minority and those from inferior socio-economic backgrounds. This is demonstrated by the manner in which the law enforcers tend to target the defenseless, substandard and poor persons (Walsh, 2016). This has been the tendency given that the offenders are easy to identify and their accessibility and assessment normally result in rapid prosecution and incarceration because their legal defenses are usually feeble. In most instances, the minority criminals are subjected to long sentencing based on the need to force control over the minority groups and thus utilize them for economic gains (Walsh, 2016). In this context, social justice can only be acquired by modifying the controlling governmental and political regulations that encourage racial based and socio-economic profiling. This is because white crimes have the tendency to prioritize the offenders over the victims given that the offenses are penalized with severe monetary fines with lenient sentences which implies that the devastating effects that are caused by the society are not considered (Walsh, 2016).
Sentencing severely on minor crimes creates social and economic effects given that families are denied the chance to associate with families while most of those that are incarcerated are the primary family providers which affect livelihood (Siegel, 2011). The society tends to be against the white criminalities more on the ground that despite the fact that huge losses are incurred the system tends to penalize them distinctively based on their prominent social status. Since street crimes are performed by the unemployed as well as the poor person’s individuals tend to believe that the system only favors the wealthy (Siegel, 2011). Both White and street crimes are deliberate given that they are structured and set for certain targets. However, white crimes conducted by the wealthy take more planning and designing which implies that more individuals are affected and the threats include financial and psychological challenges (Siegel, 2011).
Arguably, individual’s attitudes towards sentencing and criminality disparity have been altered by the intensifying rise in today’s society (Chambliss, 2011). Based on recent surveys it is apparent that crimes are very offensive given that they affect the development and stability of the society. The perception has mainly been developed due to the recent concentration by the media on the existing disparity that is fueled by socio-economic and well as racial profiling. In this context, it is apparent that there is a need to establish the major sources of the issues in order to apply the most suitable measures in handling the problem (Van, 2011). Justice can best be served if the offenders are punished on the grounds of the effects of the committed offenses rather than focusing on the socio-economic status as well as race.
Research Methodology and Design
Introduction
The research methodology to be utilized refers to a systematized examination plan to acquire answers to the study’s queries. On the other hand, a research design can best be described as an operational built plan, to be applied for investigation drives (Vogt, Gardner & Haeffele, 2012).
Research Method and Design
This study will utilize a descriptive design and a qualitative research method. This will mainly seek to establish the primary sources of crime and sentencing disparity. The research method will, therefore, be objected at establishing how racial and socio-economic profiling affects criminality and sentencing disparity in America. A qualitative method was selected given that it seeks to offer knowledge regarding an existing issue as well as help in the development of intervention strategies. In addition, the method can be utilized to unrevealing arguments and deeper societal opinions regarding the issue (Vogt, Gardner & Haeffele, 2012). The primary feature of a qualitative research can be stated to be that it is suitable for smaller groups and the results are both assessable and reliable (Vogt, Gardner & Haeffele, 2012). The basic benefit of the method over the quantitative study is that it provides comprehensive explanations and investigation of the subject under examination without restricting the research possibility and the nature of the samples answers (Tavakoli, 2013).
However, despite the benefits associated with a qualitative study, the general efficiency of the study generally depends on the capabilities and experiences of the investigator (Tavakoli, 2013). In that the data acquired cannot be assessed or quantified. In addition, the results cannot be categorized as reliable given that the ultimate conclusions are acquired from the investigator’s own analysis and assumptions. In addition, since it is suitable for a small group this means that it is associated with more threats given that the responses do not reflect just thoughts of the larger populace (Tavakoli, 2013).
Research Approach
The study will track an inductive approach. Based on this strategy the investigator mainly begins by making unique interpretations which are then utilized in generating comprehensive concepts and conclusions from the study (Antonisamy, Solomon & Prasanna, 2010). The main reasons for utilizing an inductive approach is that it considers all the strengths of the study which makes it suitable for a small populace that is used in the construction of qualitative data. This, strategy is, however, disadvantageous given that it developed generalized concepts and assumptions that are grounded on responses from a small populace which might generate dependability issues (Antonisamy, Solomon & Prasanna, 2010).
Data Collection Method and Instruments
Since the study will utilize a qualitative research, questionnaires and interviews will be applied. These instruments were selected based on their general capability to maximize responses from the respondents to be utilized for analysis. The interviews and questionnaires will be individualized and semi-structured with the objective of establishing the participant’s sensations, feelings and thoughts regarding criminality and sentencing disparity. The primary benefit of conducting private interviews as well as personalized questionnaire filling is that they tend to create better relationships among the interviews and respondents (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2013). This benefit, in addition, eradicates the unwillingness to respond accurately and truthfully but the investigators need to own effective communication abilities to develop and maintain such relationships.
More so semi-structured over the fully structured questionnaires and interviews provide more convenience and elasticity in regard to the movement which creates more space for developing conclusions that were not initially intended to be developed in regard to the study subject (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2013). In addition, the semi-structured one works to ensure that the flexibility does not result in differing from the present research goals (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2013). The questionnaires will, therefore, be utilized as the interview guide towards the accomplishment of the study’s objectives but more questions can be added based on the responses acquired from the respondents.
The study’s question will comprise of closed and open-ended queries which will seek to ensure that the responses satisfy the research goals and that maximum data is acquired which will, in turn, boost the general dependability and accuracy. This information which will be well structured based on the objectives of the research will fund to a more improved and systematized understanding of crime and sentencing disparity issue (Lim, 2013). A descriptive approach is characterized by the provision of more accurate results (Lim, 2013). In this context, the qualitative method will seek to generate meaningful and objective investigation through a purposive sampling. In recognition arrangements in the study and construction of conclusions measurable and descriptive data will be applied.
Data Collection Approach
Questionnaires will be dispersed several days before the set day for the interviews. The strategy will seek to provide adequate time for the filling and refunding the filled questionnaires to the investigator. The questionnaires will mainly be dispersed via the respondent's email addresses. Within the specified period, direct messaging reminders will be sent to each of them to ensure that the time frame is not altered which might delay the investigation. Interviews will be conducted online in order to ensure that convenience is created without affecting the activities of the respondents. This strategy is fast and cost-effective (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2013). Responses confidentiality will be ensured because summarization and analysis will be conducted personally by the researcher. On the other hand, consent forms should be signed before participating to ensure that the participants understand the aim of the study and their role.
Target Population and Sampling
The study will mainly seek to acquire opinion from the public particularly professionals and those affected by the sentencing disparity, law enforcers, administrators, and prisoners. A list of about 20 and 40 prisoners from a prison institution will be utilized as the sampling frame which will be acquired from the organization’s database with the consent of the administration. The sample frame is essential given that it seeks to create cost and time efficiency. The target population will only include that that have worked or been imprisoned for at least three years given that they are bound to offer more reliable responses based on their experiences. Individuals will less experience might generate accurate and reliable data given that they do not own enough and actual experiences in regard to sentencing disparity. The sample language, in this case, is English which was selected in order to ensure that the respondents offer dependable data that is easier to interpret (Tavakoli, 2013). The median age is 30 where the selection will range from 25 given that the study necessitates people with developed knowledge regarding the issue. Purposive sampling strategy will be utilized in creating organized responses. This method is one of the non-probability sampling strategies which asserts that the sample respondents are mainly chosen on the grounds of their association, expertise, and experience in regard to the study issue (Tavakoli, 2013). Therefore, the inclusion criteria will, therefore, account for knowledge, age, and language (Tavakoli, 2013). In this research, the sample participants who will be selected should own special association with the issue under investigation, adequate and relevant knowledge and vigorous involvement in the criminal justice.
Sampling Method
The research will mainly utilize simple random sampling strategy which will seek to ensure that the selection process of free of biases. Since the study has to be accurate and dependable biases should be eliminated not to affect the findings and the outcome of the study. Random sampling was selected for the study because it is essential because it does not only seek to ensure that accurate and reliable responses are acquired from the participants but it is more focused on creating efficiency which in turn creates accuracy (Lim, 2013). Simple random implies that everyone within the target populace has the opportunity of being selected and participating (Lim, 2013). In that, it refers to the random choosing of items from a specified populace and each and every item has equal chances of getting the selection. This strategy will, therefore, be utilized to acquire the most appropriate sample population based on the inclusion features which are knowledge, age, and experience.
Conceptual Definitions of the Key Variables to Be Measured and Measurement
The study will incorporate descriptive variables which are the major variables which can be explained thoroughly without being compared to any specific item. In this case, the study variables are sentencing and crime disparity which are mainly influenced by racial and socio-economic profiling. Descriptive variables are mainly utilized to generate summary of data, particularly when dealing with a social issue (Lim, 2013). In this context, the independent variables are race and socio-economic status while the dependent variables are sentencing and crime disparities. Ration measurement is the strategy that will be utilized to quantify variables given that it is utilized in conclusions development.
Data Analysis
The research will utilize content analysis for analyzing information which will be acquired from qualitative research interviews and questionnaires. This refers to the analysis kind where the acquired information is mainly arranged on the foundation of concepts which helps in developing explanations, patterns as well as comparison (Lim, 2013). Content analysis is beneficial because it helps to ensure that the acquired data can be lowered and simplified based on the developed concepts while still generating findings that can be quantified through the utilization of quantitative strategies (Antonisamy, Solomon & Prasanna, 2010). In addition, content analysis offers the general capability to organize qualitative data in a manner that seeks to fulfill the goals of the study. However, the method is prone to human faults given that the investigators might not understand information correctly which will this create untruthful and undependable conclusions.
Ethical Considerations
The study focuses on a sensitive social as well as criminal justice issue and is, therefore, subject to certain ethical considerations. As stated above, all the respondents must sign a consent form prior to their participation. The objective is to ensure that everyone understands that the study is not commercial based and its voluntary and one can decide to exit any given period. Survey Questions
- What is the root cause of sentencing disparity? (Yes/No) Why?
- Do you believe that sentencing and crime differences are fueled by socio-economic as well as racial forces?
- How does socio-economic status impact crimes and sentencing?
- Mention some of the probable interventions that can be applied in controlling crime and sentencing disparity?
- Is communal policing capable of lowering crime disparities and sentencing? (Yes or No).
- Is the society affected by crime disparity? If Yes how?
- Do the existing sentencing and criminal disparity demonstrate the inability of the justice system or inequality?
- Does sentencing disparity encourage racial or social discrimination? How?
- Is sentencing disparity derived from unequal treatment of equally situated persons on the basis of their status?
- Has the government done enough to address the issue?
- Has crime and sentencing disparity deterred crime?
- What does justice to you mean?
- Should sentencing be consider socio-economic or ethnic status and why?
- Is it true that the justice system should focus on crime intensity rather than the individual that committed it?
- Fairness is the only means to deterring crime and encouraging change. True or false?
References
Antonisamy, B., Solomon, C., & Prasanna, S. P. (2010). Biostatistics: Principles and practice. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Education.
Chambliss, W. J. (2011). Key issues in crime and punishment. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Deflem, M. (2017). Race, ethnicity and law. Emerald Publishing.
Ghandnoosh, N. (2015). Racial Disparities in Sentencing: Three Sources and Three Solutions. Retrieved from https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/racial-disparities-in-sentencing-three-sources-and-three-solutions
Lim, W. M. (2013). Research methodology: A toolkit of sampling and data analysis techniques for quantitative research. Place of publication not identified: Grin Verlag.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.
Shanna V. Slyke, William D. Bales. (2012). Punishment & Society. Pp. 217-246. Vol 14. Issue 2.
Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology: The core. Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Tavakoli, H. (2013). A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Tehran: Rahnamā.
Van, A. V. (2011). Streets versus suites: Public perceptions about the seriousness of white-collar crime.
Van, S. S., Benson, M. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2016). The Oxford handbook of white-collar crime. Oxford Press.
Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to use what research design. New York: Guilford Press.
Walsh, C. (2016). The Costs of Inequality: A Goal of Justice, a Reality of Unfairness. Retrieved from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-inequality-a-goal-of-justice-a-reality-of-unfairness/
