Racism And Discrimination In The Justice System: 1) Identify ✓ Solved

Racism and discrimination in the justice system: 1) Identify

Racism and discrimination in the justice system: 1) Identify the impact that race has in court proceedings. Do you think that being Black affects the outcome of a criminal process?

2) How could an allegation of selective prosecution on the basis of race be proved?

3) Homophobia: How does this prejudice affect the way decisions are made in the field of justice?

4) Elaborate a definition of homophobia, identify the causes of this type of discrimination and the ways in which it manifests itself in our society and the justice system.

5) Discrimination based on gender: How does this type of discrimination affect the process of imparting justice in the courts.

Paper For Above Instructions

Racial bias is a persistent feature of many criminal justice systems, shaping outcomes at every stage from arrest through sentencing. This paper examines how race can influence court proceedings, including charging decisions, plea bargaining, pretrial conditions, jury selection, and sentencing; it also considers the issue of selective prosecution and how claims of racial discrimination can be proven; it analyzes homophobia as a prejudice within the justice system—the causes and manifestations of this bias in law and practice; and it considers gender discrimination and its impact on the administration of justice. Drawing on foundational theories such as intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and empirical work on racial disparities in sentencing and policing (Alexander, 2010; National Research Council, 2014), the discussion highlights both structural mechanisms and individual biases that contribute to unequal outcomes in legal processes. (Crenshaw, 1989; Batson v. Kentucky, 1986; McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987; Armstrong v. United States, 1996; Virginia, 1996; Alexander, 2010; Lipsitz, 1998; National Research Council, 2014.)

Race can influence every stage of a criminal case. Racial disparities surface in charging decisions, bail determinations, the quality of legal representation, and sentencing severity. Research indicates that Black defendants are more likely to be charged with offenses carrying harsher penalties, are offered plea terms that worsen their position, and receive longer sentences than similarly situated white defendants (Alexander, 2010). The mass incarceration framework connects these individual decisions to broader outcomes: longer average sentences and higher incarceration rates for people of color (National Research Council, 2014). Jury composition and juror decision-making are also implicated; Batson v. Kentucky established that peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race, yet evidence of racial influence persists in jury selection and deliberations (Batson, 1986). Taken together, these processes create a pattern of outcomes that often disadvantage racial minority defendants (Alexander, 2010; National Research Council, 2014).

Proving selective prosecution requires showing that the government systematically enforced laws against a particular group while others outside the group receive more favorable treatment. The standard for proving such discrimination is high. The Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp held that statistical disparities alone do not prove discriminatory intent; plaintiffs must offer evidence of purposeful discrimination or admissions, patterns, or direct proof (McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987). Armstrong v. United States further clarifies that a plaintiff must demonstrate discriminatory motive in charging or prosecution decisions rather than rely on statistics alone (Armstrong v. United States, 1996). Therefore, to establish selective prosecution, a defendant typically relies on documentary evidence (internal memos, prosecutorial guidelines), patterns across a set of cases, and expert testimony linking observed disparities to intentional bias (McCleskey; Armstrong).

Homophobia in the justice system affects decisions at multiple points, from policing and arrest to trial and sentencing. Prejudice against LGBTQ people can influence perceptions of credibility, interpretations of sexual behavior, and assessments of risk. Causes include cultural norms, religious beliefs, and socialization that reinforce stigma (Lipsitz, 1998). Manifestations include biased policing practices, differential treatment in pretrial detention, and unequal application of laws that criminalize same-sex conduct or stigmatize LGBTQ individuals. Intersectionality theory reminds us that bias operates not only along race or gender lines but through their combinations with sexuality and gender identity (Crenshaw, 1989). Addressing homophobia in the justice system requires explicit anti-discrimination protections, bias training, and rigorous oversight of prosecutorial practices (National Research Council, 2014).

Gender discrimination remains a persistent feature of many justice systems. Women have faced exclusion from certain roles in court, disparate treatment in domestic violence and sexual violence prosecutions, and biases in sentencing rooted in gender stereotypes. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized sex discrimination as unconstitutional in cases such as United States v. Virginia (1996), signaling that gender bias is incompatible with constitutional principles. Nevertheless, practical gaps persist: prosecutors and judges may unconsciously favor male defendants or harbor biases related to female victims, witnesses, or defendants, depending on context. Addressing gender bias also requires examining its interaction with race and sexuality and ensuring equal access to competent counsel, fair trials, and appropriate sentencing that accounts for gender-specific harms (Crenshaw, 1989; Alexander, 2010).

In sum, race, sexuality, and gender shape court outcomes through a combination of institutional structures and individual biases. Legal doctrines and court rulings provide guardrails against discrimination, but empirical evidence shows that bias continues to influence charging decisions, plea bargains, jury selection, and sentencing. To reduce the impact of bias, reform efforts should emphasize transparent charging standards, objective risk assessments, rigorous juror vetting and education, and sentencing guidelines that account for the needs and harms experienced by different groups (Batson; McCleskey; Armstrong; Virginia; Alexander, 2010).

References

  1. Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press, 2010.
  2. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
  3. Armstrong v. United States, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).
  4. Mauer, Michael A. Race to Incarcerate. New York: The New Press, 1999.
  5. National Research Council. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.
  6. The Sentencing Project. Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System. The Sentencing Project, 2020.
  7. Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White Rule Creates White Privilege. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1998.
  8. Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989.
  9. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 539 (1996).
  10. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).

Related Assignments