Theoretical perspectives: theories, theses and dissertations
Early research into the effects of interracial economic inequality, economic hardships, economic deprivation and factors such as poverty and unemployment have contributed to a variety of theories, theses and dissertations. This includes, but is not limited to, the deprivation thesis, macrostructural theory of intergroup relations, interracial economic inequality thesis and the macro-social theory of social structure. [14] One possible suggestion for racial inequality related to crime is that areas who had a higher population of enslaved people in the 1800s would ultimately have lasting racial prejudice embedded within these areas, leading to increased rates of racial profiling and biased court systems. [16] U.S. policing and criminal justice system has historical roots in slavery and colonization, such as slave patrols, Black Codes, and Jim Crowe Laws that criminalized freed Black people, creating a pre-existing bias towards African American. [17] The following theories affects on these factors:
- Majority Minority Theory: policing intensity increases in minority majority areas with socioeconomic disadvantages.
- Conflict Theory of Law: policing backs dominant or majority group interests.
- Minority Threat Hypothesis: as minority presence or power increases, law enforcement responds with more control and aggressive strategies. [18]
Research and studies
When considering the research and studies that have been focused on the statistical rates and notable differences between race and crime, it is important to understand possible underlying issues, assumptions or biases that may occur. For example, previous studies have attempted to obtain statistical rates by disaggregating crime rates or employing race specific crime rates. [14] However, this was shown to result in an overrepresentation of specific racial groups such as blacks and other racial minorities (including both delinquents and adults). [14] [19] Other prior (and even current) studies have also utilized data such as victimization data, homicide data, and violent crimes. [14] However, some of these approaches had limitations, resulting in overrepresentation or incorrect assumptions. Possible limitations to consider are the utilization of only one measurement of discrimination or race-crime statistics, the omission of information or facts, and relying on subsets and overtly broad information and data sets. [20]
In 2020 Black Americans were 9.3 times more likely than White Americans to be homicide victims, American Indians 4.3 times, and Latin individuals 1.9 times, based on age-adjusted data. Since, homicide tends to be intraracial, these numbers highlight higher rates of offending inside the same racial groups. [21] However, other sources present data distracting from these figures. According to data in 2023, police shooting stats showed about four in ten individuals shot by officers were White, while about one in five were Black and around one in eight were Hispanic. Another report from the same year over victims of violent crimes, was found to be mostly White at around 62%, Black individuals represented around 12%, Hispanic individuals 17%, and Asian, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals making up about 4%. More recent data on arrests for violent offenses present that approximately 53% of people arrested were White, 25% were Black, and 14% were Hispanic. This expresses the demographic differences between victimization and arrest rates. [22]
In a graph published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the overall detention rate for juveniles has gone down since the 1990s; however, the rate of detention for Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous youth is still shown as significantly higher compared to white youth. [23] In an additional graph published by the OJJDP, the rate of youth arrest rates shows similar results, with Black and Indigenous youth once again facing higher rates than white youth. [24]
Currently, one of the tools utilized is the NIBRS database which has assisted with obtaining a more accurate analysis. This was due to an increase in variety and improved measure of crime. [14] However, conflicting research and findings have brought to light a multitude of potential limitations to the available documentation, records and data that is available for use in race-crime specific data. Interpretation of these studies and research conducted have resulted in a variety of narratives and outcomes due to mixed results, a lack of studies for racial groups such as Asians, and even aspects such as expectancy effects and biases (such as negativity bias). [2]
