Explanations of Ethnic Differences in Crime Rates

African-Caribbean people and Asian people are over-represented in the official crime statistics and in
the prison population.

White people are under-represented at all stages of the criminal justice process.

There are 2 arguments: some ethnic groups are more likely to offend in the first place vs the Criminal
Justice System (CJS) is biased (racist and discriminates against ethnic minorities).

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF STATISTICS

VICTIM SURVEYS

 We can gain information about ethnicity and offending from such surveys when they ask
victims to identify the ethnicity of the person who committed the crime against them.
 Victim surveys also show that a great deal of crime is intra-ethnic - that is, it takes place
within rather than between ethnic groups e.g. according to the British Crime Survey (2007),
in 90% of crimes where the victim was white, at least one of the offenders was also white.

However, victim surveys do have several limitations:

 They rely on victims' memory of events. Evidence suggests that white victims may 'over-
identify' blacks- saying the offender was black even when they are not sure.
 They only cover personal crimes, which make up only about a fifth of all crimes.
 They exclude the under 16s: minority ethnic groups contain a higher proportion of young
people.
 They exclude crimes by and against organisations, so they tell us nothing about the ethnicity
of white-collar criminals.
 As a result, victim surveys can only tell us about the ethnicity of a small proportion of
offenders, which may not be representative of offenders in general.

SELF-REPORT STUDIES

 Self report studies ask individuals to disclose their own dishonest and violent behaviour.
 Based on a sample of 2,500 people, Graham and Bowling found that blacks (43%), and
whites (44%) had very similar rates of offending, while Indians (30%), Pakistanis (28%) and
Bangladeshis (13%) had much lower rates.
 The findings of self-report studies challenge the stereotype of black people as being more
likely than whites to offend, though they support the widely held view that Asians are less
likely to offend. However, self-report studies have their limitations in relation to ethnicity
and offending.
 Overall, the evidence on ethnicity and offending is somewhat inconsistent e.g. while official
statistics point to the likelihood of higher rates of offending by blacks, this is generally not
borne out by the results of self-report studies.
ARGUMENT 1: CJS IS BIASED

INTERPRETIVIST CRITIQUES OF THE CJS

Interpretivists sociologists argue that the criminal stats do not tell us much about black or Asian
criminality – they simply tell us about their involvement with the CJS.

The evidence suggests that the OCS may not be a true record of ethnic minority crime – but rather
that the OCS may simply reflect levels of discrimination towards EMG.

Since the 1970s, the black community has been subjected to oppressive military style policing. This
has resulted in the over-policing of these communities, reflected in the excessive police use of stop,
search and arrest on young African-Caribbean males which are based on negative racial profiling or
stereotyping.

Police canteen culture – characterised by racist language, jokes and banter  underpins the decision
to stop Black Britons.

Oppressive military style policing + excessive police use of stop and search and arrest + negative
racial profiling + over policing in black communities = over representative ethnic minorities in prison.

AO3:

 There is more diversity in the police force (different ethnic groups)

 Cameras on police clothes are now used to see how they act in outer society
 But there is the glass ceiling for EM in the police force.

ETHNICITY, RACISM AND THE CJS

1. Policing

Stop and searches:

 Members of minorities ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched by the
police. Police can use this power if they have 'reasonable suspicion' of wrongdoing.
 Compared with white people, black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and
searched and Asian people over twice as likely. It should be noted that only a small
proportion of stop and searches result in arrest.
 Statistics from 2006/7 shows that Asians were over three times more likely to be stopped
and searched than other people under the Terrorism Act.
 It is therefore unsurprising that members of minority ethnic communities are less likely to
think the police acted politely when stopping them.
 2 types of discretion: Low and High – in high, police act without specific intelligence – it is in
these stops, where officers can use their stereotypes, that discrimination is most likely. In
low, police act on relevant information about a specific offence e.g. a victim’s description of
the offender.
Arrests and cautions:
 Black people were 3 times more likely than whites to be arrested.
 Once arrested, black and Asians were less likely than whites to receive a caution.
  One reason – EMGs are more likely to deny the offence and to exercise their right to legal
advice (possibly out of mistrust of the police). However, not admitting the offence means
they cannot be let off with a caution and are more likely to be charged instead.

2. Courts

Prosecution and trial:

 The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the body responsible for deciding whether a case
brought by the police should be prosecuted in court. Studies suggest that the CPS is more
likely to drop cases against ethnic minorities. Bowling and Phillips argues that this may be
because the evidence presented to the CPS by the police is often weaker and based on
stereotyping of ethnic minorities as criminals.
 When cases do go ahead, members of minority ethnic groups are more likely to elect for trial
before a jury in the Crown Court, rather than in a magistrates court, perhaps due to mistrust
of magistrates' impartiality. However, Crown Courts can impose more severe sentences if
convicted.
Convictions and sentencing:
 Black and Asian defendants are less likely to be found guilty, e.g. in 2006/7 – 60% of white
defendants were found guilty as against only 52% of blacks and 44% of Asians.
 This suggests discrimination, in that the police and CPS may be bringing weaker or less
serious cases against ethnic minorities that are thrown out by the courts.
 In 2006/7, custodial sentences were given to a greater proportion of black offenders (68%)
than white (55%) or Asian offenders (59%), whereas whites and Asians were more likely than
blacks to receive community sentences. This may be due to differences in the seriousness of
the offences, or in defendants' previous convictions.
 Pre-sentence reports: is a possible reason for harsher sentences. Hudson and Bramhall found
that reports on Asian offenders were less comprehensive and suggested that they were less
remorseful than white offenders. They place this bias in the context of the 9/11 events.

3. Prison

 In 2014, just over a quarter of the prison population were from EMGs.
 Black and Asian offenders are more likely than whites to be serving longer sentences (4
years or more).
 Within the total prison population, all minority groups have a higher than average
proportion of prisoners on remand (awaiting trial).
 E.g. in the US, 2.5 prisoners held in local jails (both convicted and awaiting) are black, white
1/5 is Hispanic.

STEPHEN LAWRENCE (1993)

Macpherson Report concluded that the London Met. Police was guilty of ‘institutional racism’ in its
failure to tackle such discrimination.

In 2008, the Met. Black Police Association  warned people from EM not to join the police force.
Racist victimisation is nothing new, but was brought back into greater public focus with the racist
murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the subsequent inquiry into the
handling of the police investigation.

Institutional Racism: refers to a pattern of discrimination based on ethnicities that have become
structured into social institutions, such as education and the police.

AO3:

 Waddington et al (2004) watched CCTV focused on officers and interviewed officers about
their stop and search activities. He found a realistic reflection of the type of people who
were on the streets at night in high crime areas.

ARGUMENT 2: ETHNICITIES DO COMMIT MORE CRIME

CASHMORE

 Used the ideas from Merton (strain theory);

 Young African-Caribbeans in Britain are encouraged like everyone else to pursue material
success but their structural opportunities are blocked by racism, failing inner-city schools
and unemployment  they experience anomie  turn to street crime  ‘innovation’ 
they reject white society, because it failed to offer them the same opportunities as white
Britons.

AO3: not all black people innovate and turn to crime. Cashmore also fails to explain why not ALL
people commit crime.

NEO-MARXIST THEORY

Criminalisation began in the 1970s – police suggesting that black Britons were responsible for street
robbery – whites were victims.  this initiated moral panic  labelled black population as folk devil.

Early 70s: British capitalism faced a crisis  provoking widespread industrial unrest and strikes and
street protests.

They used ISA to legitimise and justify crime and RSA to control crime. This divided W/C by
encouraging racial attitudes.

Key Study: Gilroy – the myth of black criminality

He says that the idea of black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African
Caribbeans and Asians. However, as a result of the police and criminal justice system acting on these
racist stereotypes, ethnic minorities come to be criminalised and therefore to appear in greater
numbers in the official statistics.

He says they deliberately commit crime for political reasons (against the government) e.g. Brexit,
and because of historical reasons – against British imperialism, slavery and colonialism.
AO3:

 Most young African Caribbeans are law-abiding citizens hence they challenge the view that
crime is anti-colonial;
 There is no evidence;
 Most crime is intra-ethnic : they tend to commit crime within their own ethnicity.

TONY SEWELL: TRIPLE QUANDARY THEORY

Sewell identifies 3 risk factors that are responsible for high levels of crime among African-Caribbean
boys.

1. They cannot relate to mainstream culture as they believe institutions are racist and therefore
work against their interest.

2. Very influenced by the media’s emphasis on conspicuous consumption e.g. identity is formed from
designer labels.

3. Brought up in single parent families where they lack a male role model.

These 3 factors cause anxiety for them, resolved by creating subcultures or gangs  they gain
respect and status and engage in hyper-masculine activities such as violence.

AO3:

 Sewell takes a multi-dimensional approach to black street crime. He argues that society
needs to take some responsibility for racism and for exaggerating material needs through
the media. However, he is also regarded as controversial because he believes that black
people need to take more responsibility for their actions.

LEFT REALISM

Lea and Young (1993) argue that ethnic differences in the stats reflects real differences in the levels
of offending by different ethnic groups.

They argue that racism has led to the marginalisation and economic exclusion of ethnic minorities,
who face higher levels of unemployment, poverty and poor housing.

At the same time, the media's emphasis on consumerism promotes a sense of relative deprivation
by setting materialistic goals that many members of minority groups are unable to reach by
legitimate means.

One response is the formation of delinquent subcultures, especially by young employed black males.
This produces higher levels of utilitarian crime such as theft as a means of coping with relative
deprivation. Furthermore, these groups are marginalised which leads their frustration to produce
non-utilitarian crime such as violence.

Lea and Young acknowledge that the police often act in racist ways and that this results in the
unjustified criminalisation of some members of minority groups. However, they do not believe that
discriminatory policing fully explains the differences in the statistics.
Lea and Young thus conclude that the statistics are caused by real differences in levels of relative
deprivation and marginalisation.

Similarly, Lea and Young argue that we cannot explain the differences between minorities in terms
of police racism.

AO3:

 However, Lea and Young can be criticised for their views on police racism e.g. arrest rates in
Asians may be lower than blacks not because they are less likely to offend, but because
police stereotypes the two groups differently, seeing Asians as passive and Blacks as
dangerous.
 Furthermore, these stereotypes may have changed since 9/11, because police now regard
Asians too as dangerous.

ETHNICITY AND VICTIMISATION

Racist victimisation occurs when an individual is selected as a target because of their race, ethnicity
or religion.

Racist victimisation is nothing new, but was brought back into greater public focus with the racist
murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the subsequent inquiry into the
handling of the police investigation.

EXTENT AND RISK OF VICTIMISATION

 The police recorded 61,000 racist incidents in England and Wales in 2006/7- mostly damage
to property or verbal harassment.
 The 2006/7 British Crime survey shows that people from mixed ethnic backgrounds had a
higher risk (36%) of becoming a victim of crime than did blacks (27%), Asians (25%) or whites
(24%).
 Ethnic groups with a high proportion of young males are thus likely to have higher rates of
victimisation. However, some of these factors (such as unemployment) are themselves
partly the result of discrimination.
 These statistics do not capture the victims' experience of victimisation. Sampson and Phillips
note that racist victimisation tends to be ongoing over time, with repeated 'minor' instances
of abuse and harassment interwoven with periodic incidents of physical violence.
 The resulting long-term psychological impact needs to be added to the physical injury and
damage to property caused by offenders.

RESPONSES TO VICTIMISATION

 Responses have ranged from situational crime prevention measures such as fireproof doors,
to organised self-defence campaigns aimed at physically defending neighbourhoods from
racist attacks.
 Such responses need to be understood in the context of accusations of under-protections by
the police, who have often ignored the racist dimensions of victimisation and failed to record
or investigate reported incidents properly.