This article can be reproduce exclusively for educational purposes

 

'Race', ethnicity and crime

Olga Heaven and Barbara Hudson

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationships between 'race', 'ethnicity' and 'crime', and we shall examine how these conflated and complex terms are used interchangeably. There is a considerable body of empirical research in the UK and elsewhere that illustrates the extent to which people from minority ethnic communities are disproportionately subject to criminal justice intervention and penal sanction, it is by situating the discussion in the plight of female foreign nationals caught in the criminal justice system of England and Wales that we can demonstrate the fractures, disharmonies and contradictions between the rule of law and practice. The first section of the chapter will examine how terms such as 'race', 'ethnicity', 'discrimination' and 'crime', are used in criminology, the 'race' relations industry, and in the criminal justice system. We will show that categorizing individuals according to race/ethnicity is by no means unproblematic. The next section looks at some of the penal policies that are associated with the dis­proportionate imprisonment of black people. We will suggest the ways in which theory and policy interact in shaping the criminal justice system and produce discriminatory outcomes. Finally, it is by deconstruct­ing the relationships between race, ethnicity and crime through the work of Hibiscus and in turn the experiences of foreign nationals, that you, the reader will begin to see how bias in the criminal justice system operates.

In particular this chapter is based on the experiences of the principal author (Olga Heaven) as Director of the Female Prisoners Welfare Project/Hibiscus, a charity that works with foreign national women prisoners. The goal of FPWP/Hibiscus is to improve the conditions of female foreign nationals who find themselves locked in the criminal justice system. Her first experience of working with foreign nationals in prison began when working as a social worker in Tower Hamlets. Many of the women she encountered led chaotic life-styles. Many had spent time in 'care', where itinerants, were often in poor health, suffered from some form of mental illness or substance abuse, and experienced extreme poverty. A dispro­portionate number were black, mainly foreign nationals, and this became the focus of FPWP/Hibiscus's work.

The second author (Barbara Hudson) has also been a social worker in southeast London, and has worked as a research officer for the probation service. She became involved with issues of race and criminal justice because the area probation service for whom she worked covered Broadwater Farm in Tottenham. After the disturbances there in the mid-1980s, questions of possible discrimination in the criminal justice system became urgent. Trying to face up to the issue of how it could deal with minority offenders in a genuinely non-discriminatory manner, the probation service became aware that many dearly held principles—such as cooperating with police and other agencies, demanding written evi­dence from offenders alleging racist treatment in young offenders institutions—might have to be rethought.

Since FPWP/Hibiscus works mostly with women in prison, we need to understand the concept of 'crime' and the causal factors responsible for sending some of them to prison, in some cases for up to poverty, in all countries for which statistics are available, it is impoverished groups who fill the prisons: African/Caribbeans in the UK; African-Americans in the US, aboriginals in Australia; Lapps and Inuits in Scandinavia; guest-workers from former Yugoslavia and Turkey in Germany; Filipino workers throughout Europe and the Gulf states; the Romany in former Eastern Europe; Romany and north Africans in south­ern Europe.

The US has the highest prison population in the world. More than half of the two million inmates are African-American or Hispanic; the majority are convicted for drugs offences, despite the fact that they represent less than a quarter of the population and less likely to be drug takers than whites (Tonry, 1995). The same is true, though to a lesser extent, in the UK where a disproportionate number of ethnic minority people are in prison for drugs offences, despite consistent surveys showing that young white people are more likely to be taking, or have taken drugs than non-whites. The explanations for these anomalies, and their effects on society and on the criminal justice system, will be explored in the next section.

 

Getting tough on crime?

 

In the decade between 1992 and 2001, the number of inmates in prison in England and Wales rose by 45 per cent from 45,486 to 66,403 (see Table 18.3). This was due to 'tougher' sentencing policies as Home Office ministers declared a 'war on drugs'. However, Table 18.1 reveals that this increase was not uniform.

 

Table 18.1 Percentage increase in number of prisoners by sex and race for the years 1992-2001

% increase

All prisoners

45

All males

43

All females

141

All whites

38

All blacks

93

White males

35

Black males

89

White females

151

Black females

155

Source: prison statistics England and Wales 2001 (Cm 5743). The Stationery Office, London.

 

 

Table 18.2 Percentage increase in no of prisoner by sexand race for the years 1997-2001

% Increase

All prisoners

7.40 per cent

All males

6.6

All females

39

All whites

4.3

All blacks

21.6

White males

3

Black males

19.4

White females

35.5

Black females

50.7

Source: prison Statistics London.

England and Wales (Cm 5743). The Stationary Office,

 

 

The black prison population constituted 10 per cent of the prison population, com­pared to less than 2 per cent of the general population in 1992; but while their percentage of the general population remained constant, the percentage in prison rose to 13 per cent in 2001. Within the prison population the numbers of black women were more disproportionate, rising from 20 per cent of all female inmates in 1992 to 21 per cent in 2001 and 25 per cent in 2003. The male prison population (94 per cent of the total in 2001) increased by 43 per cent, females went up by 141 per cent; whites by 38 per cent, blacks (see Tables 18.1 and 18.3 for Home Office ethnic classification) by 93 per cent-white males increased by 35 per cent, black males by 89 per cent, white females by 151 per cent and black females by 155 per cent. Afro-Caribbeans (constitute less than 1.5 per cent of the general population) are, as we can see from the Tables 18.1-18.5, over-represented in the criminal justice system (see also Home Office, 2002; HM Prison Service, 2004; Hudson, 1989).

By comparing Tables 18.1 and 18.2, we can see that since New Labour came to power in 1997, the rate of imprisonment has slowed. Overall the prison population increased from 58,795 in 1997 to 66,403 in 2001, a rise of 7 per cent compared to 22 per cent for the similar five-year period under the Conservative Party. The breakdown by 'race' and 'eth­nic' group shows a similar decline while the differentials remained: white male increased by 3 per cent, black male by 19 per cent, all females by 39 per cent, white females by 35 per cent, and black females by 51 per cent.

Since these figures were published (see Tables 18.1 and 18.2), there appears to have been acceleration in the numbers again: in 2003 there were 73,091 inmates, an increase of over 10 per cent in less than two years. This number is expected to rise to 91,000 by 2006 and possibly 110,000 by 2009, if the present trends continue. Since the absolute capacity of the system is for 77,500 inmates, the government will have to build new prisons (see NACRO, 2003, 2004).

 

Table 18.3

Population in prison by sex and ethnic group*

England and Wales 30 June

Sex of prisoner

Total

White

Black**

South Asian***

Chinese Other****

 

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

Males and females

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1992

45,486

100

37,705

81.

4,773

10

1,388

3

1,043

2

1993

44,246

100

36,855

83

5,013

11

1,356

3

926

2

1994

48,879

100

40,754

83

5,606

11

1,347

3

1,102

2

1995

51,084

100

42,207

83

5,982

12

1,497

3

1,318

3

1996

55,256

100

45,029

81

6,986

13

1,654

3

1,524

3

1997

61,467

100

50,164

82

7,585

12

1,865

3

1,795

3

1998

65,727

100

53,677

82

7,976

12

2,007

3

2,046

3

1999

64,529

100

52,377

81

7,964

12

1,929

3

2,225

3

2000

65,194

100

52,581

81

8,287

13

1,837

3

2,457

4

2001

66,403

100

52,303

79

9,223

14

1,993

3

2,835

4

Males

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1992

43,950

100

36,616

83

4,464

10

4,464

3

981

2

1993