In using the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the data shows that there was a steady increase in female arrests for drug sale/manufacturing and possession. It was claimed that in the 1990s there was a decline in violent crimes and in this data, we can see that there was an increase in a nonviolent crime. In looking at gender specifically, there is a disproportionate amount of who is getting arrested. Our team decided to research whether drug crime arrest rates decline equally across race and sex groups in the 1990s and it can be seen in my separate research that it did not decline equally. In Figure 1, we saw that there was a decline in arrests in 1988 and then a slow increase during the mid-1990s. This was the results that I was expecting because growing up I felt that there was an increase in public awareness on drugs and the militarization of police forces to combat drugs and punish those who were involved in the distribution of drugs. …show more content…
Another limitation of using the UCR is that it may not be reported and can be a part of dark figure crimes since many who are involved in drug possession and distribution are very discreet and often pay people or police to look the other way or threaten their lives. Although there is a variety of limitations, UCR has a lot of information being given by varies agencies. Overall, it seems there needs to be further investigation to explain the rise of nonviolent crimes during the
In the 1980’s the introduction of Crack Cocaine which was much more addictive to the users and more profitable for the drug dealers than Powder Cocaine. The prompted the administration to create Reagans War on Drugs which was supposed to make a major difference in the use of illegal drugs. By giving a much stiffer penalty to drug dealers for possession an even a moderate amount of illegal drugs. The fear of jail time was going be a deterrent to reduce the sale and illegal drug use. A minimum five year jail sentence would be handed out to someone caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine or with five grams of crack cocaine.
Crutchfield writes that, “African American and Latino drug dealers are more likely to be arrested because of their activity”. Minorities have to be extra careful about their actions. Martensen states that, “Blacks and latinos make up seventy percent of the criminal population and in 2000, eight percent of all black men and three percent of all hispanic men were incarcerated in jail or prison,” (2). It was key interest among politicians who called for the “war on crime” which just turned into “war on drugs”, and the demonization of people of color. Ronald Reagan aggressively pursued longer prison sentences as a part of the war on drugs as well.
There are many other factors that are also considered, such as the current laws, the “degree of involvement in a crime, disparate law enforcement practices, sentencing and parole policies and practices, and biased decision making” (Mauer, 2011). Take for example the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The purpose of this act was to ensure mandatory sentences for serious drug traffickers involved in the preparation, selling and packaging of crack cocaine. However, Congress’s haltingly decision to address this concern left the penalty structure completely skewed. Although there is a distinct physical difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, both share the same pharmacological roots.
Overview: The purpose of the Executive Summary, The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Executive Summary (Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, Lindquist, 2011), was to show how Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center (UI-JCP), RTI International (RTI) and Center for Court Innovation (CCI) conducted research on how drug courts impact the overall crimes related to drugs. The main issue being explored is how well the drug courts are doing to help lower crime revolving around the drug epidemic. This issue is significant to criminal justice because it shows that the United States has a serious drug dilemma that started in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that has to be combated by government and law enforcement agencies. This includes the issue you of whether or not drug courts are actually helping reduce crime.
The variable is whether the trafficker was arrested in the course of a sting or stake-out operation. These are usually more serious charges. Charges will not be reduced in the case of an undercover operation, since intent is so blatantly clear. The report states: "The findings of greatest importance to this study are those regarding the effects of race and ethnicity. Controlling for the arresting offense, and other legal and non-legal factors, we have found no
These offenders are older, have a high diploma or GED, are employed and graduate from the various types of programs. The second theory was based on racial discrimination outcomes in drug court. The Caucasian population have a better outcome in drug
Crime and Corruption Wave in the 1920s Despite the 1920s being known as one of the greatest eras of all time due to its luxurious lifestyles and inordinate parties that seemed to start when the sun disappeared and didn't end until the sun once more appeared again, nevertheless, the 1920s was also a time where corruption in government, gang violence and crimes against U.S. law an insurmountable rise that had its disastrous consequences. At the time, President Warren G. Harding was a president that was adored by many, but shortly after his unexpected death, scandals such as the Harding Administration Scandal and the Teapot Scandal came to light and ruined the reputation of this once adored president. Another form of corruption seen at the time
The racialization of the “War on Drugs” campaign was particularly evident in the sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Crack cocaine—more commonly used by black and brown communities—was punished much more severely than powder cocaine—more commonly used by white populations. This disparity resulted in disproportionate sentencing for black and brown people, contributing to the disproportionate incarceration rates and criminalization of these people According to Danielle Kurtzleben of the U.S. News & World Report’s 2010 analysis on the U.S. Sentencing Commission figures, “79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black, versus 10 percent who were white and 10 percent who were Hispanic. The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine cases are far less skewed: 17 percent of these offenders were white, 28 percent were black, and 53 percent were Hispanic” (“Data Show Racial Disparity in Crack Sentencing”). Moreover, according to government data, “Drug use rates are similar among all racial and ethnic groups.
Many factors of the crack epidemic influenced the crime drop. First, the “precipitous rise in crack cocaine in the mid-to-late 1980s in America” made violence and crime increase drastically (Baumer and Wolff, 2014, p. 21). Since crime shot up, it made statistics seem to drop even more in the 1990s, especially for homicides, as stated by Levitt (2004). The shift from young people to a “graying” society is another point at which Baumer, Wolff and Levitt can all agree could be a cause for the crime drop of the 1990s (Baumer and Wolff, 2014, p. 20).
A study conducted by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services undertaking claims of sentencing disparities studies the felony sentencing outcomes particularly in New York courts between the years 1990 and 1992. Astonishingly, the study concluded that approximately one-third of minorities sentenced to prison would have received a shorter sentence with the possibility of a non-incarcerative penalty if they had been treated similarly to their white counterparts. Consequently, other sentencing data is consistent with the results of this study’s findings. On a national scale, black males specifically, who were convicted of drug felonies in state courts 52 percent of the time, while white males typically receive prison sentencing approximately 34 percent of the time. In addition, these figures are not constrained to gender given the similar ratio among black and white women as well.
Contrast the UCR/NIBRS with the NCVS The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) has been administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since 1930 and has grown tremendously over the years. The UCR now includes data from city, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies from across the United States. In its infancy, the UCR constructed a Crime Index that “summed the occurrences of seven major offenses, including murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft—and expressed the results as a crime rate based on population” (Schmalleger, 2009) with arson being added to the list during 1979. However, due to skewed data the Crime Index was officially take out of use in the UCR/NIBRS program during 2004.
Many advocates cite that racial profiling is a tool for capturing criminals more effectively. Often alongside these claims is information that suggests minorities are more likely to commit these crimes that they are being profiled for. While these concepts are troublesome in their very nature, they are quite often false. In her article, Northeastern Law Professor Deborah Ramirez asserts that “In all published studies to date, minorities are no more likely to be in possession of contraband than whites.” (Ramirez).
For example, agencies have been established with the sole intent to manage drug use and distribution and technology has been exclusively developed to detect the presence of drugs. Yet, evidence has indicated that such exhaustive efforts have been relatively unsuccessful. First, it has been assumed that drugs have perpetuated violence in society and based on this rationale, it was believed that by the suppressing the pervasiveness of drugs that incidents of violence would simultaneously diminish. However, reality has failed to align with the expectations that had initially been anticipated. Research findings have suggested that the decriminalization of drugs would result in a less adversarial drug market in which conflicts have tended to arise among dealers as well as between dealers and buyers (Common Sense for Drug Policy, 2007, p. 21).
There are many indicators of the huge impact in disparities in sentencing women as compared to men and more so when it revolves around minorities ( race and class). Though there are lower crime rates among women as compared to men, there are significant disparities which tend to show favouritism to women. Research has shown that men get 63 per cent longer custodial sentences than women. In addition, it is twice more likely to have women get non custodial sentences even after conviction. However, as mentioned the disparities are more profound when issues of race and class are intertwined in the sentencing.
Deviant behavior reflects the opposite of societal norms. Drug use in today’s society is seen as deviant behavior. There are many factors that may lead a person to using drugs. Some of these factors include the prevalence predominately being for low socioeconomic status, the legality of a drug, the lack of education in drug use, the availability of drugs, and even the glamorization of drug use in society. These factors differ depending on certain drugs.