injustice system essay

Report Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Easily browse the critical components of this report…

Introduction

Throughout the nation, people of color are far more likely to enter the nation’s justice system than the general population. State and federal governments are aware of this disparity, and researchers and policymakers are studying the drivers behind the statistics and what strategies might be employed to address the disparities, ensuring evenhanded processes at all points in the criminal justice system. This primer highlights data, reports, state laws, innovations, commissions, approaches and other resources addressing racial and ethnic disparities within our country’s justice systems, to provide information for the nation’s decision-makers, state legislators.

Examining the Data and Innovative Justice Responses to Address Disparities

For states to have a clear understanding of the extent of racial and ethnic disparities in the states, they need to have data from all stages of the criminal justice system.

1. Law Enforcement

Disparities within traffic stops.

Contact with law enforcement, particularly at traffic stops, is often the most common interaction people have with the criminal legal system.

According to a  large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States , “police stop and search decisions suffer from persistent racial bias.” The study, the largest to date, analyzed data on approximately 95 million stops from 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police departments across the country. The authors found Black drivers were less likely to be stopped after sunset, when it is more difficult to determine a driver’s race, suggesting bias in stop decisions. Furthermore, by examining the rate at which stopped drivers were searched and turned up contraband, the study found that the bar for searching Black and Hispanic drivers was lower than that for searching white drivers.

The study also investigated the effects of legalization of recreational cannabis on racial disparities in stop outcomes—specifically examining Colorado and Washington, two of the first states to legalize the substance. It found that following the legalization of cannabis, the number of total searches fell substantially. The authors theorized this may have been due to legalization removing a common reason officers cite for conducting searches. Nevertheless, Black and Hispanic drivers were still more likely to be searched than white drivers were post-legalization.

Data Collection Requirements in Statute

At least 23 states and the District of Columbia have laws related to or requiring collection of data when an individual is stopped by law enforcement. Some of these laws specifically prohibit racial profiling or require departments to adopt a policy to the same effect. Collection of demographic data can serve as a means of ensuring compliance with those provisions or informing officials on current practices so they can respond accordingly.

States have employed many reporting or other requirements for evaluation of the data collected under these laws. For example, Montana requires agencies to adopt a policy that provides for periodic reviews to “determine whether any peace officers of the law enforcement agency have a pattern of stopping members of minority groups for violations of vehicle laws in a number disproportionate to the population of minority groups residing or traveling within the jurisdiction…”

Maryland’s law requires local agencies to report their data to the Maryland Statistical Analysis Center. The center is then tasked with analyzing the annual reports from local agencies and posting the data in an online display that is filtered by jurisdiction and by each data point collected by officers.

The amount and kind of data collected also varies state by state. Some states leave the specifics to local jurisdictions or require the creation of a form based on statutory guidance, but most require the collection of demographic data including race, ethnicity, color, age, gender, minority group or state of residence. Notably, Missouri’s law requires collection of the following 10 data points:

• The age, gender and race or minority group of the individual stopped.
• The reasons for the stop.
• Whether a search was conducted because of the stop.
• If a search was conducted, whether the individual consented to the search, the probable cause for the search, whether the person was searched, whether the person’s property was searched, and the duration of the search.
• Whether any contraband was discovered during the search and the type of any contraband discovered.
• Whether any warning or citation was issued because of the stop.
• If a warning or citation was issued, the violation charged or warning provided.
• Whether an arrest was made because of either the stop or the search.
• If an arrest was made, the crime charged.
• The location of the stop.

State laws differ as to what kind of stop triggers a data reporting requirement. For example, Florida’s law applies to stops where citations are issued for violations of the state’s safety belt law. While Virginia’s law is broader, requiring all law enforcement to collect data pertaining to all investigatory motor vehicle stops, all stop-and-frisks of a person and all other investigatory detentions that do not result in arrest or the issuance of a summons.

Cultural Competency and Bias Reduction Training for Law Enforcement

At least 48 states and the District of Columbia have statutory training requirements for law enforcement. These laws require law enforcement personnel statewide to be trained on specific topics during their initial training and/or at recurring intervals, such as in-service training or continuing education.

In most states, the law simply requires training on a subject, leaving the specifics to be determined by state training boards or other local authorities designated by law. However, some states, such as Iowa and West Virginia, have very detailed requirements and even specify how many hours are required, the subject of the training, required content, whether the training must be received in person and who is approved to provide the training.

Overall, at least 26 states mandate some form of bias reduction training. Find out more about these laws on NCSL’s Law Enforcement Training webpage.

Law Enforcement Employment and Labor Policies

States have also addressed equity and accountability in policing through certification and accountability measures and hiring practices.

For example, a 2020 California law ( AB 846 ) changed state certification requirements by expanding current officer evaluations to screen for various kinds of bias in addition to physical, emotional or mental conditions that might adversely affect an officer’s exercise of peace officer powers. The law also requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to study, review and update regulations and screening materials to identify explicit and implicit bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability or sexual orientation related to emotional and mental condition evaluations.

In addition to screening, the California law requires every department or agency that employs peace officers to review the job descriptions used in recruitment and hiring and to make changes that deemphasize the paramilitary aspects of the job. The intent is to place more emphasis on community interaction and collaborative problem-solving.

Nevada ( AB 409 ), in 2021, added to statutory certification requirements mandating evaluation of officer recruits to identify implicit bias on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity expression. That same year, Nevada also enacted legislation ( SB 236 ) that requires law enforcement agencies to establish early warning systems to identify officers who display bias indicators or demonstrate other problematic behavior. It also requires increased supervision, training and, if appropriate, counseling to officers identified by the system. If an officer is repeatedly identified by the early warning system, the law requires the employing agency to consider consequences, including transfer from high-profile assignments or other means of discipline.

Another area of interest for states has been hiring a more diverse workforce in law enforcement and support agencies. For example, New Jersey SB 2767  (2020) required the state Civil Service Commission to conduct a statewide diversity analysis of the ethnic and racial makeup of all law enforcement agencies in the state.

Finally, at least one state addressed bias in policing through a state civil rights act. Massachusetts ( SB 2963 ) established a state right to bias-free professional policing. Conduct against an aggrieved person resulting in decertification by the Police Office Standards and Training Commission constitute a prima-facie violation of the right to bias-free professional policing. The law also specifies that no officer is immune from civil liability for violating a person’s right to bias-free professional policing if the conduct results in officer decertification.

Disproportionality of Native Americans in the Justice System According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 2015 to 2019, the number of American Indian or Alaska Native justice-involved individuals housed in local jails for federal correctional authorities, state prison authorities or tribal governments increased by  3.6% . Though American Indian and Alaska Natives make up a small proportion of the national incarcerated population relative to other ethnicities, some jurisdictions are finding they are disproportionately represented in the justice system. For example, in  Pennington County , S.D., it is estimated that 10% to 25% of the county’s residents are Native American, but they account for 55% of the county’s jail population. Similarly, Montana’s Commission on Sentencing  found  that while Native Americans represent 7% of the state’s general population, they comprised 17% of those incarcerated in correctional facilities in 2014 and 19% of the state’s total arrests in 2015.

Modal title

2. pretrial release and prosecution, risk assessments.

Recently, state laws have authorized or required courts to use pretrial risk assessment tools. There are about  two dozen pretrial risk assessment tools in use  across the states. 

Laws in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and Vermont require courts to adopt or consider risk assessments in at least some, if not all, cases on a statewide basis. While laws in Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and West Virginia authorize or encourage, but do not require, adopting a risk assessment tool on a statewide basis.

This broad state adoption of risk assessment tools raises concern that systemic bias may impact their use. In 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder  said  pretrial risk assessment tools “may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and our society.”

More than 100 civil rights organizations expressed similar concerns in  a statement  following a 2017 convening. The dependance of pretrial risk assessment tools on data that reflect systemic bias is the crux of the issue. The statement highlights that police officers disproportionately arrest people of color, which impacts risk assessment tools that rely on arrest data. The statement then set out key principles mitigating harm that may be caused by risk assessments, recognizing their broad use across the country.

The conversation about bias in pretrial risk assessments is ongoing. In 2021, the Urban Institute published the report “ Racial Equity and Criminal Justice Risk Assessment .” In the report, the authors discuss and make recommendations for policymakers to balance the use of risk assessment as a component of evidence-based practice with pursuing goals of reducing racial and ethnic disparities. The authors state that “carefully constructed and properly used risk assessment instruments that account for fairness can help limit racial bias in criminal justice decision-making.”

Academic studies show varied results related to the use of risk assessments and their effect on racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. One study, “ Racist Algorithms or Systemic Problems ,” concludes “there is currently no valid evidence that instruments in general are biased against individuals of color,” and, “Where bias has been found, it appears to have more to do with the specific risk instrument.” In another study, “ Employing Standardized Risk Assessment in Pretrial Release Decisions ,” the authors, without making causal conclusions, find that “despite comparable risk scores, African American participants were detained significantly longer than Caucasian participants … and were less likely to receive diversion opportunity.”

In a recent report titled “ Civil Rights and Pretrial Risk Assessment Instruments ,” the authors recommend steps to protect civil rights when risk assessment tools are used. The report underscores the importance of expansive transparency throughout design and implementation of these tools. It also suggests more community oversight and governance that promotes reduced incarceration and racially equitable outcomes. Finally, the report suggests decisions made by judges to detain should be rare, deliberate and not dependent solely on pretrial risk assessment instruments.

States are starting to regulate the use of risk assessments and promote best practices by requiring the tool to be validated on a regular basis, be free from racial or gender bias and that documents, data and records related to the tool be publicly available.

For example, California (2019  SB 36 ) requires a pretrial services agency validate pretrial risk assessment tools on a regular basis and to make specified information regarding the tool, including validation studies, publicly available. The law also requires the judicial council to maintain a list of pretrial services agencies that have satisfied the validation requirements and complied with the transparency requirements. California published its most recent validation  report  in June 2021.

Similarly, Idaho (2019  HB 118 ) now requires all documents, data, records and information used to build and validate a risk assessment tool to be publicly available for inspection, auditing and testing. The law requires public availability of ongoing documents, data, records and written policies on usage and validation of a tool. It also authorizes defendants to have access to calculations and data related to their own risk score and prohibits the use of proprietary tools.

Pretrial Release

A  recent report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights  evaluates the civil rights implications of pretrial release systems across the country.

Notable findings from the report include stark racial and gender disparities in pretrial populations with higher detention rates and financial conditions of release imposed on minority populations. The report also finds that more than 60% of defendants are detained pretrial because of an inability to pay financial conditions of release. 

States have recently enacted legislation to address defendants’ ability to pay financial conditions of release, with at least 11 states requiring courts to conduct ability-to-pay considerations when setting release conditions.  NCSL’s Statutory Framework of Pretrial Release report  has additional information about state approaches to pretrial release.

Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutorial discretion is a term used to describe the power of prosecutors to decide whether to charge a person for a crime, which criminal charges to file and whether to enter into a plea agreement. Some argue this discretion can be a source of disparities within the criminal justice system.

The  Prosecutorial Performance Indicators  (PPI), developed by Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago, is an example of an effort to address this. PPI provides prosecutors’ offices with a method to measure their performance through several indicators, including racial and ethnic disparities. As part of their work to bring accountability and oversight to prosecutorial discretion, PPI has created six measures specifically related to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. The PPI measures include the following:

• Victimization of Racial/Ethnic Minorities.
• Case Dismissal Differences by Victim Race/Ethnicity.
• Case Filing Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.
• Pretrial Detention Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.
• Diversion Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.
• Charging and Plea Offer Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.

Below is a table highlighting disparity  data discovered through the use of PPI measures , gathered from specific jurisdictions.

Young People in the Justice System

As is the case in the adult system, compared to young white people, youth of color are disproportionately represented at every stage in the nation’s juvenile justice system. Overall juvenile placements  fell by 54%  between 2001 and 2015, but the placement rate for Black youth was 433 per 100,000, compared to a white youth placement rate of 86 per 100,000. According to a report from the Prison Policy Initiative, an advocacy organization, titled “ Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie 2019 ,” 14% of all those younger than 18 in the U.S. are Black, but they make up 42% of the boys and 35% of the girls in juvenile facilities. Additionally, Native American and Hispanic girls and boys are also overrepresented in the juvenile justice system relative to their share of the total youth population.  Information  from California reveals that prosecutors send Hispanic youth to adult court via “direct file” at over three times the rate of white youth.

At the federal level, the 2018 reauthorized  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act  requires states to identify and analyze data on race and ethnicity in state, local and tribal juvenile justice systems. States must identify disparities and develop and implement work plans to address them. States are required to document how they are addressing racial and ethnic disparities and establish a coordinating body composed of juvenile justice stakeholders to advise states, units of local government and Native American tribes. If a state fails to meet the act’s requirements, it will result in a 20% reduction of formula grant funding.

An example of a coordinating council that has examined extensive data is the Equity and Justice for All Youth Subcommittee of the  Georgia Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group . The group conducted a county-by-county assessment and analysis of disproportionality in Georgia and found one of the most effective ways to reduce disproportionate treatment of youth is to reduce harsh disciplinary measures in schools. This in turn helps reduce disproportionate referrals to the system.

3. Incarceration

Incarceration statistics help paint a picture of the disparities in the criminal justice system. Significant racial and ethnic disparities can be seen in both jails and prisons. According to the MacArthur Foundation’s  Safety and Justice Challenge website , “While Black and Latinx people make up 30% of the U.S. population, they account for 51% of the jail population.”

An  October 2021 report  from The Sentencing Project, an organization advocating for criminal justice reform, found that “Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at nearly five times the rate of whites, and Latinx people are 1.3 times as likely to be incarcerated than non-Latinx whites.” At the time of the report, there were 12 states where more than half of the prison population is Black and seven states with a disparity between the Black and white imprisonment rate of more than 9 to 1.

To have a clearer sense of the racial makeup of who is incarcerated at any given time, some systems developed data dashboards to provide information on their jail populations. In Allegheny County, Pa., for instance, the  jail data dashboard  is publicly available and provides a range of information on who is incarcerated in the jail. The dashboard provides an up-to-the-day look at the race, gender and age of the jail population. According to the dashboard, on average from Jan. 1, 2019, to mid-November 2021, 65% of individuals in the jail were Black.

Dashboards may also be established by the individual state, though these generally look back over a specified time, rather than providing a close-to-live look at the jail population. Colorado passed a law in 2019 ( HB 1297 ) requiring county jails to collect certain data and report it to the state Division of Criminal Justice on a quarterly basis. That data is compiled in a publicly available  Jail Data Dashboard . The dashboard includes information on the racial and ethnic makeup of jail populations in the state. In the second quarter of 2021, 88% of people incarcerated in jails in the state were white, 16% were Black, 2% were Native American and 1% were classified as “other race.” In the same quarter, ethnicity data for incarcerated people showed 67% were non-Hispanic, 33% were Hispanic and 9% were classified with “unknown ethnicity.”

Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections has an online  dashboard  providing similar information for the state prison population. The dashboard shows Black people make up 12% of the state’s overall population but 44% of the population in state correctional institutions, while white people make up 74% of the state population and 45% of the state prison population. While dashboards themselves don’t reduce disparities, they help create a clearer understanding of them.

4. Sentencing

Racial and ethnic disparities can also be seen in the sentencing of individuals following a criminal conviction. The use of sentencing enhancements and federal drug sentencing both provide examples of the disparities in sentencing.

Sentencing enhancements in California  have been found  to be applied disproportionately to people of color and individuals with mental illness according to the state’s  Committee on Revision of the Penal Code . More than 92% of the people sentenced for a gang enhancement in the state, for instance, are Black or Hispanic. The state has more than 150 different sentence enhancements and more than 80% of people incarcerated in the state are subject to a sentence enhancement.

In response to recommendations from the committee,  AB 333  was enacted in 2021 to modify the state’s gang enhancement statutes by reducing the list of crimes under which use of the current charge alone creates proof of a “pattern” of criminal gang activity and separates gang allegations from underlying charges at trial.

Impact Statements and Legislative Task Forces

Racial impact statements and data.

Legislatures are currently taking many steps to increase their understanding of racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. In some states, this has taken the form of racial and ethnic impact statements or corrections impact statements.

At least 18 states require  corrections impact statements  for legislation that would make changes to criminal offenses and penalties. These look at the fiscal impact of policy changes on correctional populations and criminal justice resources. A few states have required the inclusion of information on the impacts of policy changes on certain racial and ethnic groups.

Colorado has taken this approach. The state enacted  legislation in 2013  (SB 229) requiring corrections fiscal notes to include information on gender and minority data. In 2019, the state passed  legislation  (HB 1184) requiring the staff of the legislative council to prepare demographic notes for certain bills. These notes use “available data to outline the potential effects of a legislative measure on disparities within the state, including a statement of whether the measure is likely to increase or decrease disparities to the extent the data is available.”

Other states with laws requiring racial and ethnic impact statements include  Connecticut ,  Iowa ,  Maine ,  New Hampshire ,  New Jersey ,  Oregon  and  Virginia . Additionally, Florida  announced  a  partnership  in July 2019 “between the Florida Senate and Florida State University’s College of Criminology & Criminal Justice to analyze racial and ethnic impacts of proposed legislation.”  Minnesota’s Sentencing Commission has compiled racial impact statements for the legislature since 2006, though this is not required in law.

Legislative Studies and Task Forces

States are also taking a closer look at racial disparities within criminal justice systems by creating legislative studies or judicial task forces. These bodies examined disproportionalities in the criminal justice system, investigated possible causes and recommended solutions.

In 2018, Vermont  legislatively established  the state’s  Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Advisory Panel . The panel submitted its  report to the General Assembly  in 2019. Part of the report recommended instituting a public complaint process with the state’s Human Rights Commission to address perceived implicit bias across all state government systems. It also recommended training first responders to identify mental health needs, educating all law enforcement officers on bias and racial disparities and adopting a community policing paradigm. Finally, the panel agreed that increased and improved data collection was important to combat racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. The panel recommended “developing laws and rules that will require data collection that captures high-impact, high-discretion decision points that occur during the judicial processes.”

State lawmakers are well positioned to make policy changes to address the racial and ethnic disparities that research has shown are present throughout the criminal justice system. As they continue to develop a greater understanding of these disparities, state legislatures have an opportunity to make their systems fairer for all individuals who encounter the justice system, with the goal of  reducing or eliminating racial and ethnic disparities. 

• NCSL on View the PDF Report NCSL

DO NOT DELETE - NCSL Search Page Data

Related resources, juvenile justice legislation database, 2023 policing policy legislation in review.

U.S. states and territories enacted nearly 400 of the more than 2,200 policing policy bills introduced in 2023. This story summarizes laws enacted in three main categories.

First Appearance | April 2024

New NCSL Diversion database plus a round-up of front-end justice policy, research and news.

Contact NCSL

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

• What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
• Is this a press or media inquiry? No Yes
• Admin Email

Finding Humanity in Our Criminal Justice System

I t was dark and windy the evening of Sunday, September 8, 2019, when Luis Alberto Quiñonez—everyone called him Sito—and his girlfriend, Ariana Bassard, left his girlfriend’s mother’s new apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. Sito noticed that one of the tires on his car seemed low on air. After reinflating it at a service station, Sito made a quick, hard right into heavy traffic, which caused his girlfriend Arianna to drop her cell phone underneath her seat. They pulled over around the corner so she could retrieve it.

A young man in a hooded sweatshirt stepped up to the car’s driver’s-side window, raised an automatic pistol to the glass, and started shooting . By the time the shooter finished, 21 cartridges littered the car, inside and out. Seventeen of those bullets had cut through Sito’s neck, shoulder, chest, and stomach. Arianna survived. Sito did not.

Sito was my stepson’s half-brother. His murder forced my family to grapple with the cyclical tragedy of gang violence, vengeance, and an indifferent criminal justice system. Whenever I reflect on the circumstances of his death, one question keeps coming back to haunt me: when a life is extinguished by street violence, how does a victim’s family heal?

This question isn’t new to me, but the personal context is. As a professor of Anthropology and Public Affairs at Princeton, my work focuses on patterns and cultures of American urban violence. For a very long time, I have been aware of the terrible effects of incarcerating young people. But it wasn’t until Sito’s murder that I really understood how worthless a victim’s family can be made to feel in their encounter with the criminal justice system—especially if, in the past, the system has treated them or their loved ones as perpetrators.

This humanity and care are rarely available to those caught up in this country’s justice system, especially the juvenile justice system. Sito was one of these young people: when he was 14 years old, Sito was accused of murdering a former classmate. He spent five months in the San Francisco Youth Guidance Center (otherwise known as juvenile hall) while the district attorney decided whether to try him as an adult. Sito was lucky: a private investigator uncovered surveillance footage of the attack, showing clearly that Sito did not kill the young man. The DA dropped the charges against Sito, and he was released.

Read More: Youth Prisons Don’t Work. Here’s What Does.

But despite the clearing of Sito’s name, it was far from cleared in a practical sense—and just about everyone who goes through the system can tell a similar tale. In the shadow of a wrongful accusation, the accused and their families often bear the stigma of a “criminal” label both with the public and in their personal lives. Wrongful accusation typically results in severe post-traumatic stress , and that murder allegation would haunt Sito for the rest of his short life. Five years after he was accused of this murder, Sito was murdered by the young man’s little brother, who could not be convinced that Sito wasn’t responsible for his brother’s death.

This tragic cycle of violence—played out in my family here, but typical for families across the U.S. dealing with the pervasiveness and pain of urban violence—has forced me to think about accountability in new ways. It is my firm belief that the people whom the system accused of crimes, wrongfully or not, need to be humanized at every step of the process—from the moment a news story about a crime breaks to when the gavel sounds and a verdict is announced.

Humanizing both victims and perpetrators of violence may seem like a simple and obvious strategy. Of course, it isn’t: Violence provokes compassion for the victim, and oftentimes, rage against the perpetrator. This is especially true within the criminal justice system, where one or the other emotion is considered an appropriate response—but never both, and never at the same time. The system is designed to crush complexity because of this binary, which is then relentlessly reduced to slogans and soundbites on social media.

Read More: The Path to Redemption for Our Criminal Justice System

But what if we could embrace the grey areas of this binary rather than diminish it, and instead, promote healthy debates regarding imprisonment? Because in doing so, we might begin to recognize that people who commit crimes—or are even just accused of doing so—are human beings worthy of empathy and care just as much as crime victims.

To help the public grapple with hot button issues like crime and violence, our institutions must dedicate themselves to reducing misinformation about crimes existing—and spreading—in the first place. Schools, for example, should promote media literacy programs to educate individuals about verifying information before sharing. Social media platforms should continue to enforce strict policies against the spread of false information, flagging misinformation while empowering users to report incorrect information. And responsible reporting by the news media would ensure that when someone like Sito is exonerated of a crime, official sources, such as police statements and government announcements, amplify this news. The result would be a more sober, equitable, and humane approach to criminal accountability.

Before Sito’s murder, I did not know that I could experience compassion and rage at the same time. Yet in writing about his life and death, I came to see that our society needs a form of accountability that blends these seemingly contradictory emotions. As an alternative to criminal punishment, restorative justice allows for that possibility.

In some settings, victims and offenders communicate directly with one another so that the perpetrator can acknowledge fault and offer some form of restitution to the victim. The victim, in turn, may forgive the perpetrator, bringing a sense of closure to the crime. The perpetrator may also become more willing to embark on a journey of self-improvement. In other settings, community stakeholders publicly discuss their grief , and the perpetrator receives their messages later. Whether the victim’s communication with the perpetrator is private and direct or public and indirect, the goal is for the victim and the perpetrator to understand each other better—or at least stop thinking of each other as enemies. Researchers have proven that restorative justice reduces imprisonment (and therefore costs to the system), provides greater satisfaction for both victims and offenders, and decreases recidivism rates.

Restorative justice is as much a mindset as it is a collection of standardized techniques. Its core principles include public accountability and a commitment to investigating the root causes of wrongful acts. Can we borrow something of this model, and apply it to the criminal justice system, more broadly? To reject complexity and yearn for purity, is, after all, to turn away from the intricate nature of the human situation. We do so at our peril—and at the expense of young lives that could be so much more.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The New Face of Doctor Who
• Putin’s Enemies Are Struggling to Unite
• Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• Boredom Makes Us Human
• John Mulaney Has What Late Night Needs
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

A better path forward for criminal justice: Conclusion

Subscribe to governance weekly, rashawn ray and rashawn ray senior fellow - governance studies @sociologistray brent orrell brent orrell senior fellow - american enterprise institute @orrellaei.

Below is the conclusion from “A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice,” a report by the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. You can access other chapters from the report here .

As we write this report, the high-profile failures of the criminal justice system remain front and center in news coverage and the nation’s public policy agenda. The trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd draws our attention to how police authority continues to be a frequent threat to life and well-being, especially for low-income individuals and people of color. The police killing of Daunte Wright in a Minneapolis suburb further fuels community distrust and racial division in the Twin Cities and around the country.

At the same time, we are seeing a sudden and disturbing spike in criminal activity and violent offenses in our major urban areas. This spike has variously been attributed to social stress related to the pandemic, a declining willingness of police forces (in the wake of the Floyd death and subsequent civil unrest) to risk potentially dangerous confrontations with individuals committing crimes, and a growing unwillingness among prosecutors to try lower-level offenses thus implicitly encouraging worse ones.

As we prepare to exit pandemic conditions, we recommend a strategic pause to gather data that will help us understand why criminal activity has gone up and inform both immediate responses as well as longer-term reform initiatives. There will be a temptation – on both sides – to argue that the recent spike confirms their prior understandings and policy preferences; either that the recent burst of crime can be effectively controlled by a ratcheting up “tough-on-crime” policies and practices or that it is exactly these practices that create the predicate for crime surges by disrupting lives, families, and neighborhoods through excessive reliance on force and incarceration. We should resist both of these views while we strive for a better understanding of the forces driving and shaping patterns of criminal offenses. It is entirely possible, given the unprecedented conditions of the past 12 months, we will find ourselves surprised by what we learn.

As is often the case, we may need an “and” approach rather than an “or” approach. Policies need to address recent rises in crime and overpolicing. This is why our report focuses on the criminal justice as a whole. Policing is the entree to the criminal justice system that sorts people based on race, social class, and place. Most people do not want less policing. They want equitable policing, and equitable treatment once interacting with the criminal justice system, either as a victim or perpetrator.

Research-informed innovation that builds a more flexible and effective toolbox of responses is needed to move us towards the more peaceful, flourishing, and just society that is the shared objective of conservatives and progressives alike.

The sources of criminal activity and public safety challenges are multifaceted while our responses to them are often singular: more and tougher policing, prosecution, and incarceration. Not every public order challenge is a nail in need of a hammer. If we are to honor the dignity of every person and respect the sanctity of human life, we need a more balanced and diversified approach that recognizes confrontation and coercion are not the only, and often not the best, strategies for protecting our communities. Research-informed innovation that builds a more flexible and effective toolbox of responses is needed to move us towards the more peaceful, flourishing, and just society that is the shared objective of conservatives and progressives alike.

The essays in this volume and the recommended supplemental readings provide much food for thought about the major areas of criminal justice reform that should be at the top of the nation’s agenda. The recommendations are varied and informed by differing perspectives on how to better balance the requirements of community safety, civil liberty, policing and procedural protections, and supporting and achieving lasting changes in attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes among justice-involved individuals as befits a nation committed to the idea of rehabilitation and not just retribution. The authors in this volume will continue convening to discuss, debate, and research these complex issues, with a shared goal of identifying ways to improve our country’s criminal justice system. These are deeply interconnected issues requiring a thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive response rather than an immediate reversion to long-held and -argued views that may fit recent history or current conditions. A nation that incarcerates so many at such a high cost in public resources and wasted human lives can ill-afford to do otherwise.

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusion and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. AEI does not take institutional positions on any issues.

Support for this publication was generously provided by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of its authors and do not represent the views of the Foundation, their officers, or employees.

Governance Studies

Richard Lempert

May 15, 2024

Online Only

10:00 am - 11:15 am EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington DC

10:00 am - 11:30 am EDT

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Footnote leads to exploration of start of for-profit prisons in N.Y.

Should NATO step up role in Russia-Ukraine war?

It’s on Facebook, and it’s complicated

Illustrations © John Jay Cabuay

An overhaul for justice

But how do you translate an appetite for change into reality?

Ana Billingsley

To anyone reading the headlines, it’s clear there are serious problems with our criminal justice system, but to people trapped within it, the harms run deeper than the headlines can convey.

I saw this every day when I worked for the New York City Department of Correction on Rikers Island, creating employment and reentry programming for young adults. From the overly wide net law enforcement casts in Black and Latinx neighborhoods to the lack of comprehensive support available to people upon release, every stage of the criminal justice system is more harmful to people of color and those without access to wealth. Watching the students in my programs cycle in and out of the jails, I witnessed the incredibly high cost paid by the justice-involved, their families, and their communities for these systemic failings.

We know what some of the solutions are: connect people to resources that address their underlying needs instead of locking them up; allow those who can’t afford bail to return to their families and jobs instead of awaiting trial in jail; dispatch trained professionals like social workers to appropriate 911 calls instead of police officers. But what’s not always clear is the how . How can under-resourced governments shift to these new systems — and how can they demonstrate that reforms are resulting in better and more just outcomes?

I wanted to understand not only what changes we needed to make, but how we were going to make those changes a reality. That’s what led me to the Harvard Kennedy School’s Government Performance Lab (GPL). Our goal is to speed up progress against problems by innovating around the how . To do this, we embed teams with local governments to provide technical assistance, collaborating closely to test solutions that allow governments to transform their social service systems.

I’m leading a team in Harris County, Texas, that was formed after county leaders reached out to the GPL requesting support for their criminal justice reform projects, including helping manage the response to the ODonnell federal consent decree mandating an overhaul of its bail practices.

“There’s no system too big to reimagine — not even the criminal justice system.”

In 2016, Maranda ODonnell was arrested in Harris County for driving with an invalid license and held in jail pretrial because she couldn’t afford her $2,500 bail. Like thousands of other people in the country, arrest swept ODonnell through the front doors of the system and into wealth-based incarceration. The impact of being jailed before trial can be lasting and severe: in addition to job loss, disruption in benefits like health insurance, and debt creation from being unable to work, it also increases your chances of pleading guilty and receiving a harsher sentence. Because low-income people and people of color are arrested and jailed at disproportionate rates, the consequences are felt even more deeply in these communities.

My team and I are supporting Harris County government leaders as they take bold steps to make changes to their pretrial justice system: improving bail practices, enhancing early diversion and pretrial supervision, and exploring new ways to approach crisis response and alternatives to policing. Today, the majority of people in Harris County arrested on a misdemeanor charge are set free with a reminder to come back to court — no cash bail is required to get out — and people working in the criminal justice system are trained on both the impact of cash bail and how to identify supports for people who need help getting back to court.

While there is more work to be done, these reforms are working : the system is decreasing the wealth-based detention of poor people and shrinking the racial disparities in who gets released, all without a subsequent increase in crime.

But our work in Harris County and with other jurisdictions across the country is not just about implementing changes to improve the criminal justice system in that particular city, county, or state. It’s about testing and capturing innovations to shift from automatic punishment, which we know can magnify economic inequities and compound the effects of systemic racism, to community-based solutions that enable people to thrive. It’s about creating a roadmap that other governments can use to make their own systems more just. It’s about realizing there’s no system too big to reimagine — not even the criminal justice system.

About the author Ana Billingsley is an assistant director with the Government Performance Lab at the Harvard Kennedy School. Learn more about GPL’s work at https://govlab.hks.harvard.edu/

Share this article

You might like.

Historian traces 19th-century murder case that brought together historical figures, helped shape American thinking on race, violence, incarceration

National security analysts outline stakes ahead of July summit

‘Spermworld’ documentary examines motivations of prospective parents, volunteer donors who connect through private group page 

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts

Criminal Injustice

• Climate Solutions
• Commencement 2024

The ideas, research, and actions from across Harvard University for creating a more equitable criminal justice system.

Solving racial disparities in policing

Experts say that the approach must be comprehensive because the roots of injustice are embedded in our culture.

Read more on The Harvard Gazette

The right to remain vocal.

Members of the Harvard community on the many approaches needed to have a truly just criminal justice system.

Learn more about the Harvard Kennedy School’s Government Performance Lab  (GPL).

Personal essay

“There’s no system too big to reimagine—not even the criminal justice system.”

Ana Billingsley, assistant director with the Government Performance Lab at the Harvard Kennedy School, on translating an appetite for change into reality.

Read Ana’s essay

The flaws in our data

Harvard professor and computer scientist Latanya Sweeney discusses issues surrounding the increased use of data and algorithms in policing and sentencing.

Your browser does not support the audio tag.

JASON NEWTON Data, and the algorithms that interpret data, are everywhere. From predicting which advertisements to send to your social media feeds, to using your location data to track which stores you frequent, society constantly leverages data to make decisions – even in the criminal justice system. Data and algorithms are being used in policing to predict where crimes might take place, and during sentencing to predict whether or not someone convicted of a crime is likely to reoffend. But with the long history of systemic racism within the United States criminal justice system, does that mean the algorithm itself will be flawed by racist and prejudicial assumptions?  JN I’m Jason Newton… RACHEL TRAUGHBER …and I’m Rachel Traughber, and this is Unequal: a Harvard University series exploring race and inequality across the United States.  RT To answer this question and shed light on how our data and algorithms are being used more broadly, we’re joined today by computer scientist Latanya Sweeney, Professor of the Practice of Government and Technology at the Harvard Kennedy School and in the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences. She is an expert on data privacy, director of the data privacy laboratory at Harvard, and is widely regarded as one of the most preeminent voices in the field. She joins us now with more.  JN Professor Sweeney, give us a brief description of what these data algorithms are, what they tell us and how is it they are now used in our criminal justice system.  LATANYA SWEENEY Sure, thank you. Society has definitely experienced exponential growth in the amount of information collected on individuals. The idea now is not only do you have the collected data, but how do we use that data to make decisions. And that’s where these data algorithms come in. They analyze the data, they look for models, they make predictions, and they can be used to help humans make decisions.  One of the places they can do that is in the criminal justice system. There are all types of decisions that are made there and lots of historical data on which an algorithm can learn. One of those examples is recidivism: This is the place where you try to decide whether or not a person will be allowed to go out on bail. So just because someone’s arrested doesn’t mean they’re guilty, that’s where the trial to decide. But whether or not they’ll be allowed to go out on bail is a decision that has to be made, usually by a judge, and a recidivism algorithm can use historical data to make that recommendation. JN Okay, but could you tell us what some of the drawbacks are to using this technology, as it tries to predict human behavior? LS Definitely, there are two major areas in which these drawbacks can happen. One is the date on which the algorithm has to learn or it’s going to learn these models to make its predictions, and the other one is when the algorithm uses a feedback from the person who is giving the information. And they say, Yes, I like that it gives me more like that, or give me less like that. So the bias in the algorithm example, is in the recidivism algorithm that I talked about, if judges before had been making biased decisions about who was allowed to go out on bail and who wasn’t, the algorithm will pick up that bias, and will then continue to perpetuate those decisions. If the algorithm has a feedback system, and it makes a recommendation, and a judge doesn’t like it says, I don’t really agree with that one, then over time, the algorithm will adjust to the preferences or biases that the judge may have. The example I think that most people really understand is when people are being recommended for a job. So there are many algorithms now that will take a bank of resumes and when there’s a job opening, or recommend people based on their resume to the potential employer. The potential employer then says yes, this one comes for an interview, not those. But if that employer has a bias against older people, then in fact, only young people will come be offered to offered to that person for interview. And on the next time that employee use it, it will only recommend younger people. So now the bias is even trapped in even further.   RT I would like to unpack a little bit about these data algorithms applied to search results. I know that you’ve done some particular research on this and had some interesting discoveries. And I wonder if you would share a little bit about that with us? LS: In fact, that’s what started this area of research on algorithmic fairness, I had just become a professor here at Harvard. And I was in my office, when I was being interviewed by a reporter. I wanted to show him a particular paper. So I typed My name into the search bar onto the Google search bar, and up pop the paper I was looking for, but also a popped an ad implying I had an arrest record. And so the reporter said, I forget that paper, tell me about when you’re arrested. And I said, Well, I haven’t been arrested. But eventually I had to click on the link, pay the money, and show him that not only did it not have an arrest record for me, but with my unusual name, there was no one else who had an arrest record with that name, either.  But that started me on the question of why did that happen. And so I spent hours and then a couple of months, and what I came to learn was that those ads came up, implying you had an arrest record, if you search the name of a real person, their first and last name, and if their first name was given more often to a black baby than a white baby, and they were 80% likely to have an arrest record show up. And and the opposite. If the baby the first name was given more often to white babies.  Discrimination in the United States is not illegal. But [for] certain people in certain situations, discrimination is illegal. One of those…one of those groups of people are Blacks, and one of those situations is employment. And so if two people were applying for a job, and a search implies that one of them has an arrest record and the other one doesn’t, they’re put at a disadvantage. So this was the first time an algorithm, in this case, Google Search, was found to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act. JN That’s a really good point. So from the bias in the in the courtroom to out in the community, brings me to my next question, how have aggressive police tactics, and the over policing of black and minority neighborhoods over the past several decades affected this type of algorithm? LS Right, this is a fantastic question. We don’t we can’t even say we know the exact answer because we have to be able to say “this is exactly its impact on the data.” As we look at studies who show its impact on the data, then the question is, can we account for that when the algorithms are learning? So if the data is biased, the result from the algorithm is going to be biased?  I’ll give you a Harvard example. Many years ago, when I was at Harvard, you know, pretty much it was primarily young white men, or certainly we can imagine a time even earlier than that, where was young white men. If we wanted to make an admissions algorithm for Harvard at that time, we would have used the admissions data that had that had been used. The algorithm would learn things and the population that we would get would be young white guys. So the data we provide to the algorithm has a lot to determine about what the algorithm will put out. Often I speak to students, and it really brings that home to them. Harvard’s campus right now is so diverse. When you look at in the classroom, it’s just an amazing, these are the best minds in the world. And they come from all different walks of life, all different countries. When they say wait a second, this room would look – look how different it would look, and not based on the same criteria. RT We’ve spoken a lot about how these algorithms can be used nefariously or unwisely, I’m wondering if you can suggest some opportunities that they could be adjusted for good and what that future might look like. LS Well, I’m a computer scientist, I want society to enjoy the benefits of these new technologies! I want society to enjoy the benefits, but without sacrificing these important historical protections. There’s no reason that that can’t be done. In every example that I’ve talked about today, we can imagine and envision ways two different things that can be done. One is an analysis of the data and the algorithm that can provide a guarantee of what it won’t do, of what kind of bias it doesn’t exhibit. The second kind of thing we can imagine is actually changing the algorithm so that it itself does it offsets a racial bias result. So the advertising algorithm would be an example of that. RT And last, I just wonder if you might give us any insight into you know, what kind of oversight goes into algorithms in general? I mean, it sounds like based on the conversation we’ve had here today that people are sort of, this is new technology, people are just applying it as they see fit, because they think it might make their jobs easier, or their lives easier. And instead, it’s…it’s exacerbating some of the inequalities that we’re seeing. Is there any oversight of these from a governmental perspective from a nonprofit perspective? Like, how, what is the next step in terms of policy creation? LS Yeah, this is a fantastic question. You know, it’s part of a larger arc. It’s not just these algorithms, it’s technology design, and designers are the new policymakers. We don’t elect them, we don’t vote for them, but the arbitrary decisions they make, and the technology products they produce dictate how we live our lives. And that’s everything from free speech, to…to privacy, to things like these decision-making algorithms that we’ve been talking about today. And so there’s a bigger arc around, how do we address technology itself and its impact on society. Our historical protections are intact, but they don’t seem to know how to apply or adapt themselves to the current technology.  So one big answer we need is a new kind of technologist, one who works in the public interest, working in all of these places, and [with] all these stakeholders, working in technology design and technology companies working in agencies that regulate for these rules, so that they can understand them, working in Congress, and so forth. RT Yeah, I think we’ve definitely seen what happens when we don’t have people doing that work. But the you know, the events of January 6, in particular, and how a lot of that liaising to make that experience happen happened online happened through technology not being regulated. So it would be interesting to see what the next step would be to prevent something like that, and how technology could be used productively and positively to help. LS Yeah, and I would just say, you know, Twitter provides a great example, as well. Twitter has its own definition of free speech. And it’s a private company, so it can have this other definition of free speech. But Americans want to talk about Americans definition, America’s definition of free speech, and somehow be upset if Twitter doesn’t quite satisfy it. And and the other thing I’ve heard is Americans interpreting Twitter’s version as if it is America’s version. It just shows you how pervasive the technology is, and how the design of Twitter as an example, is really dictating what we think our free speech rights are. RT If you liked what you heard today and are anxious to learn more from Harvard’s Unequal project, visit us online at the “in focus” section of harvard.edu.  

A history that can’t be suppressed

Bryan Stevenson discusses the legacy of slavery and the vision behind creating the National Memorial for Peace and Justice and The Legacy Museum in Montgomery Alabama.

Read more on Harvard Law Today

Read more profiles from To Serve Better

Undoing injustice

Omavi Shukur went into law because he felt it was “the most effective route to go on that [would] allow me to help change people’s material reality for the better.”

Read Omavi’s story

Where we’re focused

These are just a few of the initiatives Harvard Schools have created to take on these important issues.

Harvard initiatives

• Harvard Kennedy School’s Government Performance Lab
• The Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management
• Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project

Making progress

The Harvard Divinity Bulletin is a place where critical reflection can take place and meaningful ideas can be exchanged.

Let my people go

The Carr Center’s Justice Matters Podcast investigates a wide array of human rights issues at home and abroad.

Imagining radical solutions

Learn more about the Weatherhead Center’s blog .

Fighting the enemy within

The Kennedy School’s PolicyCast features leading experts in public policy, media, and international affairs, and explores their experiences confronting the world’s most pressing public problems.

A historic crossroads for systemic racism and policing in America

Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Policy Program brings you a series of in-depth conversations with the people on the front lines reforming the criminal legal system.

Restorative justice with Fania Davis

Slavery’s legacy and the racial awakening of 2020

“Policing in America” is a Harvard Law School lecture series on American policing in the current moment, what brought us here, and opportunities for improvement.

Diagnosing the American penal system

Police, prosecutors, and qualified immunity, police unions and politics, the costs of inequality: a goal of justice, a reality of unfairness — harvard gazette, the costs of inequality: when a fair shake isn’t — harvard gazette, the costs of inequality: across harvard, efforts to improve lives — harvard gazette.

Harvard offers myriad programs to alleviate the inequality gap within the University, from neighboring communities to overseas.

Injustice in American Prison System Essay

Between the articles of violence and the observations about the extent of injustice in the American prison system, there is a high level of injustice instigated by the U.S. government to the African Americans. The design and laws governing injustice in the country rely heavily on deeply entrenched racial prejudice used to undermine black Americans continuously. While both races, Caucasians and blacks, commit violence, the significant violence, as Afzaal (2012) shows, is being committed by the U.S. government and through its structural actors.

Structural violence is a means by which the government, while it might appear not to be directly involved in creating unequal chances, is now harming the black Americans. Through ethical and legal systems, the African American community has been preoccupied with intentional harm is concerned with portraying, punishing, or holding blacks as the guilty party (Afzaal, 2012). That is the reason why as Rich (2014) shows first, nearly half of the prisoners in the U.S. have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy nonviolent terms. Second, there is an increase in prisoners in state institutions that are serving life sentences without parole.

Some other institutions apart from schools, hospitals, and courthouses, where structural violence might exist, are the legislative arm of the government. In the U.S., almost one-quarter (23 percent) of the Senate and House of Representatives members belong to ethnic minorities and blacks (Schaeffer, 2021). Like in all other institutions, ethnic minorities and African Americans are denied equal representation, making it challenging for them to fight for equality in a heavily founded country on racial segregation. Meaning, the fight for equal rights between these groups will never be achieved unless there is a fifty-fifty representation in all groups in the political divide.

Afzaal, A. (2012). The Violence Triangle . Ahmed Afzaal. Web.

Rich, B. A. (2014). Observations on the Nature and Extent of Injustice in the American Prison System. American Journal of Bioethics, 14, 7, 1-3.

Schaeffer, K. (2021). Racial, ethnic diversity increases yet again with the 117th Congress . Pew Research Center. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, December 12). Injustice in American Prison System. https://ivypanda.com/essays/injustice-in-american-prison-system/

"Injustice in American Prison System." IvyPanda , 12 Dec. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/injustice-in-american-prison-system/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Injustice in American Prison System'. 12 December.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Injustice in American Prison System." December 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/injustice-in-american-prison-system/.

1. IvyPanda . "Injustice in American Prison System." December 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/injustice-in-american-prison-system/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Injustice in American Prison System." December 12, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/injustice-in-american-prison-system/.

• The Basic Differences Between Probation and Parole
• Family History Project
• Parole as an Incentive to Control Inmate Behavior
• Analysis of the Social Context of Crime
• Latin Kings: Organizational Turning Points
• Behavior: Theory of Differential Association
• The Rational Choice and Other Criminal Theories
• Impact of Public Opinion the Prosecution of Celebrity Sex Offenders in Canadian Courts

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Systemic Injustice in the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is a highly debated topic because of the racial motivations that occur so often throughout it. Today we can truly see how much systemic injustice occurs and how much racial injustice is a serious issue. I read an article recently that talked about the racial discrimination that persists today in the criminal legal system. In the article by Project Innocence it states “Innocent Black people spend an average of 13.8 years wrongly imprisoned before being exonerated — about 45% longer than innocent white people. This racial disparity in time spent wrongfully incarcerated holds true across different types of convictions. Black people tend to receive harsher sentences when accused of sexual assault, and have a harder time being exonerated from a wrongful conviction. On average, they spend 4.5 more years in prison than their white counterparts before being exonerated.” (PI) These issues are seen everywhere in the US and make minority groups considered to be lower than those that are the majority. It puts people in a position where they have no power to do anything about saving themselves. They are portrayed as being of lesser value than others solely based on their skin color. This relates heavily to Simone deBeauvoir’s One and the Other concept. Her concept deals with the other being less than the one in situations and how the one is to be dominant over the other. This intertwines well with the theory that the criminal justice system sees white people as dominant over black people. The justice system has created traditions and patterns of this that makes the whole system a systemic injustice.The previous quote shows that throughout the justice system there is less care and conciseness towards African Americans when being sentenced. The system ultimately puts less effort into making sure that trials are ran fairly and the African Americans that are being prosecuted are given adequate treatment. One example in particular of mistreatment and cruelty in the system comes from an article that states “In Illinois, for example, under former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge, police psychologically abused and physically tortured more than 100 Black men and women until many falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit. Several people wrongly convicted by Mr. Burge and his officers, including Innocence Project client Kevin Bailey, have since been exonerated.” (PI) This exemplifies the brutal treatment that African American receive when going through the criminal justice system and it shows how there is a large power inequity at play. Those higher up in the system have a large amount of power over those down below, this is a great example of the one and the other concept being applied. They have no way to fend for themselves when they may be stuck in a jail for a substantially longer period of time then a white person may be. The problem is there is no way to prove that if there is no one advocating for them to be treated fairly. The system itself has let African Americans down and will not allow anyone to fight for them the way they should be fought for. This issue is so prevalent in many different justice systems and affects African Americans more than any other race, preventing them from being able to succeed the way everyone else does or to live a normal life.

Innocence Project: https://innocenceproject.org/facts-racial-discrimination-justice-system-wrongful-conviction-black-history-month/

2 thoughts on “ Systemic Injustice in the Criminal Justice System ”

I really enjoyed reading your diary systemic injustice and the insight it gave me into our justice system. For one of my diaries, I almost choose to do this topic. I think this is an important topic that is very prevalent today. I watched the YouTube video attached to your post by Professor Daniel J. D’Amico and loved the additional information he gave me on this topic and think it connect well to your post. I think this is a very important topic that more people need to be informed on. What stood out to me from your post the most was that on average, African Americans spend 4.5 more years in prison than their white counterparts before being exonerated. This is a statistic I was not aware of and think is outrageous and needs to be addressed.

I really enjoyed reading your post and the points you provided. I totally agree our criminal system is corrupt and lots of African American are being affected. Our justice system should be there to help and protect us not accuse and conflict us. As an African American I get scared just being pulled over for a speeding because you don’t know what it will lead to. Others are wrongfully accused for crimes they didn’t which is totally not accepted because you stripping the life of a innocent person and causing mental trauma to both their parents and the individual. The justice system should do more and to avoid injustice like this.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Georgia State University Law Review

Home > COLPUB > GSULR > Vol. 33 > Iss. 3 (2017)

Injustice Under Law: Perpetuating And Criminalizing Poverty Through The Courts

Judge Lisa Foster

Document Type

Money matters in the justice system. If you can afford to purchase your freedom pretrial, if you can afford to immediately pay fines and fees for minor traffic offenses and municipal code violations, if you can afford to hire an attorney, your experience of the justice system both procedurally and substantively will be qualitatively different than the experience of someone who is poor. More disturbingly, through a variety of policies and practices—some of them blatantly unconstitutional—our courts are perpetuating and criminalizing poverty. And when we talk about poverty in the United States, we are still talking about race, ethnicity, and national origin.

The majority of poor people in the United States are people of color. Although a substantial plurality are white, 24% of African-Americans and 21% of Hispanics live in poverty. Yet, African-Americans comprise just 12% of the total population, and Hispanics comprise just 18%. The impact of what we have done and continue to do daily in courtrooms throughout the United States is to trap people—including disproportionately people of color—in poverty.

In this essay, I will describe how the justice system enforces poverty employing three examples: bail, fines and fees, and access to counsel in civil cases. These are by no means the only ways in which the justice system quite literally imprisons people in poverty, but they are widespread and particularly pernicious. I will also provide a legal framework for analyzing these practices and a brief gloss on their history. I will conclude hopefully with a discussion of successful reform efforts and a way forward.

Recommended Citation

Judge Lisa Foster, Injustice Under Law: Perpetuating And Criminalizing Poverty Through The Courts , 33 G a. S t. U. L. R ev. 695 (2017). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol33/iss3/8

Since August 11, 2017

Included in

Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons , Constitutional Law Commons , Courts Commons , Criminal Law Commons , Criminal Procedure Commons , Judges Commons , Law and Economics Commons , Law and Politics Commons , Law and Society Commons , Social Welfare Law Commons

• Law Review Repository Home
• Editorial Board
• Masthead Archives
• Prospective Members
• Legislative Forum
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

ISSN: 8755-6847

Search Peach Sheets Only

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Michelle Maiese

June 2003  

The Many Faces of Injustice

While it is difficult to give a complete and adequate definition of justice, most observers can recognize clear examples of serious injustice when they arise.[1] Such injustice comes in various forms, wherever the norms of distributive justice , procedural justice, or human rights are violated .

Some actions, such as theft and murder, are commonly recognized as unjust by governments and prohibited by domestic law. However, there are also systemic forms of injustice that may persist in a society. These traditions and structures give rise to profound injustices that can be difficult to recognize.[2] In some cases, these unfair conditions are imposed by the ruling party itself, whether it is an authoritarian government or an outside aggressor. Those in power sometimes use the state's legal and political systems to violate the political, economic, and social rights of subordinate groups.[3]

Political injustice involves the violation of individual liberties, including the denial of voting rights or due process, infringements on rights to freedom of speech or religion, and inadequate protection from cruel and unusual punishment.[4] Such injustice often stems from unfair procedures, and involves political systems in which some but not others are allowed to have voice and representation in the processes and decisions that affect them.[5] This sort of procedural injustice can contribute to serious social problems as well as political ones. If voting or litigation procedures, for example, are perceived to be unjust, any outcome they produce is liable to be unstable and produce conflict.[6] In addition, any procedures that are carried out in a biased manner are likely to contribute to problems of religious, ethnic, gender, or race discrimination. When the procedure in question has to do with employment or wages, such issues can lead to serious economic and social problems.

Economic injustice involves the state's failure to provide individuals with basic necessities of life, such as access to adequate food and housing, and its maintenance of huge discrepancies in wealth. In the most extreme cases of maldistribution, some individuals suffer from poverty while the elite of that society live in relative luxury.[7] Such injustice can stem from unfair hiring procedures, lack of available jobs and education, and insufficient health care. All of these conditions may lead individuals to believe that they have not received a "fair share" of the benefits and resources available in that society.

Even more serious than the injustices discussed above are war crimes and crimes against humanity. During wartime, individuals sometimes perform acts that violate the rules of just war set forth in international law . When soldiers engage in wars of aggression, attack non-combatants or pursue their enemies beyond what is reasonable, they commit not acts of war, but acts of murder.[8] However, these are not the only injustices associated with war and protracted conflict. Such conflict can also lead to severe human rights violations , including genocide , torture, and slavery. These crimes violate individuals' most basic rights to life and physical safety.

When political or legal institutions fail to protect individuals' fundamental rights and liberties, members of the unjustly treated group feel disempowered .[9] They are likely to view the institutions that impose such conditions as unjust, and thus find themselves in the midst of a justice conflict . If the subordinate group believes that it lacks the power to change things through political or diplomatic means, it may conclude that the only effective way to pursue justice is through violent confrontation.[10] However, such confrontations tend to produce even more injustice. In addition, because the dominant group typically has more power to inflict harm, such struggles often fail. Therefore, violence is often an ineffective way of addressing injustice, and many believe that it should be used only as a last resort.

Responding To Injustice

Many scholars and activists note that in order to truly address injustice internationally, we must strive to understand its underlying causes. These causes have to do with underdevelopment, economic pressures, various social problems, and international conditions.[11] Indeed, the roots of repression, discrimination, and other injustice stem from deeper and more complex political, social, and economic problems. It is only by understanding and ameliorating these root causes and strengthening civil society that we can truly protect human rights .

There are various ways to address the political, economic and social injustices mentioned above. Whether a response proves to be appropriate and effective depends on the nature of the grievance.

Addressing political injustice is often a matter of developing institutions of fair governance, such as an accountable police force and judiciary. Legislative action and executive decision-making should likewise be held accountable. Such measures are sometimes a matter of reforming state institutions or revising state constitutions.

In cases where some groups are excluded from political participation, the state can remedy violations of political rights by promoting political inclusion and empowering subordinate groups. Public decision-making should respond to the will of the citizens, and members of the society should have the opportunity to participate in the formulation, execution, and monitoring of state policies. In other words, a culture of political involvement and public participation should be fostered. In addition, there are various social structural changes that might give groups more social, economic, and/or political power. This is often accomplished through the strengthening of the economy and civil society in conjunction with democratization efforts. In some cases countries require outside assistance for election monitoring , nation-building programs and the development of governmental infrastructure to make their political system more stable.

Addressing systemic economic injustice is often a matter of economic reforms that give groups better access to jobs, health care, and education. In many cases, lack of access to basic services stems from enormous inequalities in resource distribution. Redistribution of benefits and resources can thus be an important component of social structural changes to remedy injustice. There are various institutional and economic development reforms that might be put in place to raise living standards and boost economic growth. In addition, by creating social and economic safety nets, states can eliminate tension and instability caused by unfair resource allocation.

For example, development of programs that provide assistance for the poor, pensions for the elderly, and training and education for workers help remedy injustice,[12] tax reform, giving workers the right to unionize and demand a fair wage, advancing ecological policies to protect and preserve the environment, and improving access to land ownership can also help in particular cases.[13]

Balancing out gross inequalities in wealth might also be part of compensatory justice after periods of war. During periods of postwar adjustment and peacebuilding efforts, long-term economic policy must aim to achieve equity, or balance in the distribution of income and wealth. Such efforts to ensure a just distribution of benefits following conflict are typically accompanied by democratization efforts to ensure a more balanced distribution of power. When neglect of economic rights stems from the destruction caused by protracted conflict, countries may require outside aid to remedy injustice and avoid future instability. Humanitarian aid and development assistance are often needed to help a society build its economic resource base and ensure that the needs of its citizens are met. Issues of distributive justice are in this way central to any reconstruction program that aims at economic vitalization and rebuilding post-war economic systems .

Responding to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

Severe violations of basic rights to life and physical safety are sometimes enacted through government policies or inflicted during the course of warfare. It is commonly recognized that government leaders and soldiers, as well as civilians, must be held accountable for perpetrating such injustices.

International humanitarian law has been enacted to preserve humanity in all circumstances, even during conflicts. Various international committees are in place to monitor compliance with human rights standards and report any violations. When breaches occur, the perpetrators must somehow be brought to justice.

According to the notion of retributive justice , past acts of injustice or wrongdoing warrant punishment. Those who perpetrate war crimes or crimes against humanity should be brought to justice. When injustices are committed in the initiation or the conduct of warfare, retribution is typically accomplished through international courts or tribunals that carry out war crimes adjudication.

In other cases, human rights violations form part of national policy. Most believe that government officials should be held accountable for institution policies of apartheid, forced disappearance, torture, or genocide . Such breaches are typically brought to the attention of international tribunals or tried in an international court. Punishment is thought to reinforce the rules of international law and to deny those who have violated those rules any unfair advantages. In addition, many believe that punishment deters other would-be offenders from committing similar crimes in the future.

However, international law and adjudication is often insufficient to address grave injustice. When breaches do occur, they are brought to the attention of international tribunals or a war crimes tribunal . As conditions escalate in violence and more individuals are taken prisoner, tortured, or executed, it becomes more difficult to resort to the legal path.[14]

Some maintain that the vigilant observance of the international community is necessary to ensure justice.[15] Various nongovernmental organization (NGOs) , including Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, are devoted to bringing injustice to light and pressuring governments to address the injustice. Historically, the United Nations has likewise played a central role in dealing with international justice issues.

Many maintain that massive violations of human rights, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, warrant military intervention . If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty.[16] In such cases, outside governments have a positive duty to take steps to protect human rights and stamp out injustice.

However, this sort of response is limited, because governments are often reluctant to commit military forces and resources to defend human rights in other states.[17] In addition, the use of violence to end human rights violations poses a moral dilemma insofar as such interventions may lead to further loss of innocent lives.[18] It is imperative that the least amount of force necessary to achieve humanitarian objectives be used, that intervention not do more harm than good, and that it be motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns. Otherwise, such interventions are likely to simply cause more injustice.

Restoring Justice Once Conflict Has Ended

A central goal of responding to injustice is paving the way for future peace. Once conflict has ended and policies of oppression have been repealed, society members face the task of rebuilding their society. Many believe that measures aimed at restorative justice are well-suited for this task.

Restorative Justice is concerned with healing wounds of victims and repairing harm done to interpersonal relationships and the community. It can play a crucial role in responding to severe human rights violations or cases of genocide. Huge advances are made when governments tell the truth about past atrocities carried out by the state.[19] It is thought that true healing requires remembering the atrocities committed, repenting, and forgiving. War crimes inquiries and truth commissions can aid in the process of memory and truth telling and help to make public the extent to which victims have suffered.

Restoration often becomes a matter of restitution or war reparations. In cases where clear acts of injustice have taken place, some type of compensation package can help to meet the material and emotional needs of victims and remedy the injustice. Repentance can also help to re-establish relationships among the conflicting parties and help them to move toward reconciliation . In some cases, conflicts can end more peacefully when parties acknowledge their guilt and apologize than when formal war crimes adjudication or criminal proceedings are used.

In cases of civil war, because the line between offenders and victims can become blurred, a central goal of peacebuilding is to restore the community as a whole. Restoration often becomes tied to the transformation of the relationship between the conflicting parties. However, such restoration cannot take place unless it is supported by wider social conditions and unless the larger community makes restorative processes available.

Many note that an adequate response to injustice must involve social structural changes , reconstruction programs to help communities ravaged by conflict, democratization and the creation of institutions of civil society. Only then can the underlying causes of injustice be remedied.

[1] Paul Wehr, Heidi Burgess, and Guy Burgess. Justice Without Violence. (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1994), 9.

[2] Morton Deutsch, "Justice and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice , ed. M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 2000), 55.

[3] Wehr, Burgess, and Burgess, 9.

[4] Wehr, Burgess, and Burgess, 37.

[5] Deutsch, 56.

[6] Deutsch, 52.

[7] Wehr, Burgess, and Burgess, 37.

[8] Alex Moseley, "Just War Theory," in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001)

[on-line] available at: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm , accessed January 30, 2003.

[9] Wehr, Burgess, and Burgess, 9.

[10] Wehr, Burgess, and Burgess, 7.

[11] Antonio Cassese, Human Rights in a Changing World . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 59.

[12] "Reconciling Social Policy and Economic Reform," an Interview with Domingo Cavallo by the Center for International Private Enterprise, Economic Reform Today, [on-line] available at http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e22/cavE22.htm , accessed on January 30, 2003. (No longer available as of March 5th 2013)

[13] Gustavo Palma Murga, "Promised the Earth: Agrarian Reform in the Guatemalan Socio-Economic Agreement," (Conciliation Resources, Accord, 1997) [on-line] available at http://www.c-r.org/accord-article/promised-earth-agrarian-reform-socio-economic-agreement , accessed on January 30, 2003.

[14] Michel Veuthey, "International Humanitarian Law and the Restoration and Maintenance of Peace." African Security Review 7, no. 5 (1998) [on-line] available from http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/7No5/InternationalHumanitarian.html , accessed on January 30, 2003.

[15] Cassese, 55-6.

[16] Don Hubert and Thomas G. Weiss et al. The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001), 136.

[17] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.

[18] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 137.

[19] Peggy Hutchison and Harmon Wray. "What is Restorative Justice?" [on-line] Available at: http://gbgm-umc.org/nwo/99ja/what.html , accessed on January 27, 2003.

Use the following to cite this article: Maiese, Michelle. "Addressing Injustice." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/address-injustice >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of May 19, 2024 -- Another in our weekly set of links from readers, our colleagues, and others with important ideas for our field.
• Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

Students are often asked to write an essay on Justice System In The Philippines in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

Introduction to the philippine justice system.

The justice system in the Philippines is the way the country keeps peace and order. It’s like a set of rules and people who make sure everyone is treated fairly. This system has courts, police, and laws that help solve problems when people disagree or someone does something wrong.

Courts and Judges

In the Philippines, courts are where judges decide on cases. They listen to both sides and look at the evidence. There are different levels of courts, from local ones to the Supreme Court, which is the highest.

Law Enforcement

Police officers are important in the justice system. They make sure people follow laws. If someone breaks a law, the police take them to court where a judge can decide what happens next.

Laws and Rights

The country has many laws that protect people’s rights. These laws say what is okay and what is not. Everyone must follow them, and they help the courts decide on cases.

The justice system in the Philippines faces challenges like taking a long time to finish cases and not always being fair to everyone. People are working to make the system better for all Filipinos.

250 Words Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

What is the justice system in the philippines.

The justice system in the Philippines is made up of courts that handle different kinds of problems. It is like a ladder with many steps. The first step is the local courts, where small cases are heard. Bigger cases go to higher courts. The highest court is the Supreme Court, which makes the final decisions.

Types of Courts

There are several types of courts. The lowest is the Barangay court, which deals with small community issues. Above them are the Municipal and Regional Trial Courts, which look at more serious cases. The Court of Appeals reviews decisions from lower courts. The Supreme Court is at the top and has the last say.

How Courts Work

When someone breaks the law, they go to court. The judge listens to both sides before making a decision. If the person is found guilty, they might need to pay a fine or go to jail. People can ask higher courts to check the decision if they think it’s wrong.

Problems and Improvements

The justice system in the Philippines faces challenges like long delays and corruption. The government and some groups are trying to fix these problems by training better judges and using computers to speed up work.

The justice system in the Philippines is a set of steps designed to solve disputes and keep peace. It has issues, but efforts are being made to make it better for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Justice System In The Philippines

Introduction to the justice system in the philippines.

The justice system in the Philippines is a set of rules and institutions that the country uses to solve legal problems, punish people who break the law, and make sure that everyone is treated fairly. It’s like a big machine with many parts working together to make sure that people live in peace and that those who do wrong are held responsible.

Types of Courts in the Philippines

In the Philippines, there are different kinds of courts, each with its own job. The lowest courts are called the Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts. They handle small cases. Above them are the Regional Trial Courts, which deal with more serious matters. Then there’s the Court of Appeals, where you can ask for a decision to be looked at again if you think it’s wrong. At the top is the Supreme Court, which is the most powerful and makes the final decisions on the biggest issues.

Police and Law Enforcement

The police are the ones who make sure the laws are followed. They catch people who break the law and help gather evidence. However, in the Philippines, some people worry that the police are not always fair or that they sometimes do not respect the rights of the people they are supposed to protect.

The Legal Process

When someone is accused of a crime, they go through a legal process. First, they are charged, which means they are told what they are accused of. Then, they go to court where a judge or a group of people called a jury listen to both sides – the side of the person who is accused and the side of the government. After hearing everything, the judge or jury decides if the person is guilty or not.

Challenges and Issues

The justice system in the Philippines faces many challenges. Sometimes, it takes a very long time for cases to be finished, which can be unfair to the people waiting for a decision. There are also times when the rich and powerful seem to get special treatment, which is not fair to everyone else. Fighting corruption within the system is also a big problem that the country is working on.

Improvements and Reforms

To make the justice system better, the Philippines is trying to introduce changes. These include training for judges and police, making the process faster, and using new technology to manage cases. By doing this, the hope is to make the justice system more fair and efficient for everyone.

The justice system in the Philippines is an important part of how the country runs. It has many parts, from the police who enforce the laws to the courts that make decisions. While there are difficulties, such as slow processes and corruption, efforts are being made to improve the system. It’s essential for a fair society that everyone, no matter who they are, is treated equally under the law.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Justice Is Only For The Rich And Powerful
• Essay on Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
• Essay on Justice And Human Rights

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Happiness Gap Between Left and Right Isn’t Closing

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Why is it that a substantial body of social science research finds that conservatives are happier than liberals?

A partial answer: Those on the right are less likely to be angered or upset by social and economic inequities, believing that the system rewards those who work hard, that hierarchies are part of the natural order of things and that market outcomes are fundamentally fair.

Those on the left stand in opposition to each of these assessments of the social order, prompting frustration and discontent with the world around them.

The happiness gap has been with us for at least 50 years, and most research seeking to explain it has focused on conservatives. More recently, however, psychologists and other social scientists have begun to dig deeper into the underpinnings of liberal discontent — not only unhappiness but also depression and other measures of dissatisfaction.

One of the findings emerging from this research is that the decline in happiness and in a sense of agency is concentrated among those on the left who stress matters of identity, social justice and the oppression of marginalized groups.

There is, in addition, a parallel phenomenon taking place on the right as Donald Trump and his MAGA loyalists angrily complain of oppression by liberals who engage in a relentless vendetta to keep Trump out of the White House.

There is a difference in the way the left and right react to frustration and grievance. Instead of despair, the contemporary right has responded with mounting anger, rejecting democratic institutions and norms.

In a 2021 Vox article, “ Trump and the Republican Revolt Against Democracy ,” Zack Beauchamp described in detail the emergence of destructive and aggressive discontent among conservatives.

Citing a wide range of polling data and academic studies, Beauchamp found:

More than twice as many Republicans (39 percent) as Democrats (17 percent) believed that “if elected leaders won’t protect America, the people must act — even if that means violence.”

Fifty-seven percent of Republicans considered Democrats to be “enemies,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats who viewed Republicans as “enemies.”

Among Republicans, support for “the use of force to defend our way of life,” as well as for the belief that “strong leaders bend rules” and that “sometimes you have to take the law in your own hands,” grows stronger in direct correlation with racial and ethnic hostility.

Trump has repeatedly warned of the potential for political violence. In January he predicted bedlam if the criminal charges filed in federal and state courts against him damaged his presidential campaign:

I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes. It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.

Before he was indicted in New York, Trump claimed there would be “potential death and destruction” if he was charged.

At an Ohio campaign rally in March, Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole country.”

In other words, Trump and his allies respond to adversity and what they see as attacks from the left with threats and anger, while a segment of the left often but not always responds to adversity and social inequity with dejection and sorrow.

There are significant consequences for this internalization.

Jamin Halberstadt , a professor of psychology at the University of Otago in New Zealand and a co-author of “ Outgroup Threat and the Emergence of Cohesive Groups : A Cross-Cultural Examination,” argued in his emailed reply to my inquiry that because “a focus on injustice and victimhood is, by definition, disempowering (isn’t that why we talk of ‘survivors’ rather than ‘victims’?), loss of control is not good for self-esteem or happiness.”

But, he pointed out:

this focus, while no doubt a part of the most visible and influential side of progressive ideology, is still just a part. Liberalism is a big construct, and I’m reluctant to reduce it to a focus on social justice issues. Some liberals have this view, but I suspect their influence is outsized because (a) they have the social media megaphone and (b) we are in a climate in which freedom of expression and, in particular, challenges to the worldview you characterize have been curtailed.

Expanding on this line of argument, Halberstadt wrote:

I’m sure some self-described liberals have views that are counterproductive to their own happiness. One sub-ideology associated with liberalism is, as you describe, a sense of victimhood and grievance. But there is more than one way to respond to structural barriers. Within that group of the aggrieved, some probably see systemic problems that cannot be overcome, and that’s naturally demoralizing and depressing. But others see systemic problems as a challenge to overcome.

Taking Halberstadt’s assessment of the effects of grievance and victimhood a step farther, Timothy A. Judge , the chairman of the department of management and human resources at Notre Dame, wrote in a 2009 paper, “ Core Self-Evaluations and Work Success ”:

Core self-evaluations (C.S.E.) is a broad, integrative trait indicated by self-esteem, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy and (low) neuroticism (high emotional stability). Individuals with high levels of C.S.E. perform better on their jobs, are more successful in their careers, are more satisfied with their jobs and lives, report lower levels of stress and conflict, cope more effectively with setbacks and better capitalize on advantages and opportunities.

I asked Judge and other scholars a question: Have liberal pessimists fostered an outlook that spawns unhappiness as its adherents believe they face seemingly insurmountable structural barriers?

Judge replied by email:

I do share the perspective that a focus on status, hierarchies and institutions that reinforce privilege contributes to an external locus of control. And the reason is fairly straightforward. We can only change these things through collective and, often, policy initiatives — which tend to be complex, slow, often conflictual and outside our individual control. On the other hand, if I view “life’s chances” (Virginia Woolf’s term) to be mostly dependent on my own agency, this reflects an internal focus, which will often depend on enacting initiatives largely within my control.

Judge elaborated on his argument:

If our predominant focus in how we view the world is social inequities, status hierarchies, societal unfairness conferred by privilege, then everyone would agree that these things are not easy to fix, which means, in a sense, we must accept some unhappy premises: Life isn’t fair; outcomes are outside my control, often at the hands of bad, powerful actors; social change depends on collective action that may be conflictual; an individual may have limited power to control their own destiny, etc. These are not happy thoughts because they cause me to view the world as inherently unfair, oppressive, conflictual, etc. It may or may not be right, but I would argue that these are in fact viewpoints of how we view the world, and our place in it, that would undermine our happiness.

Last year, George Yancey , a professor of sociology at Baylor University, published “ Identity Politics, Political Ideology, and Well-Being : Is Identity Politics Good for Our Well-Being?”

Yancey argued that recent events “suggest that identity politics may correlate to a decrease in well-being, particularly among young progressives, and offer an explanation tied to internal elements within political progressiveness.”

By focusing on “political progressives, rather than political conservatives,” Yancey wrote, “a nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between political ideology and well-being begins to emerge.”

Identity politics, he continued, focuses “on external institutional forces that one cannot immediately alleviate.” It results in what scholars call the externalization of one’s locus of control, or viewing the inequities of society as a result of powerful if not insurmountable outside forces, including structural racism, patriarchy and capitalism, as opposed to believing that individuals can overcome such obstacles through hard work and collective effort.

As a result, Yancey wrote, “identity politics may be an important mechanism by which progressive political ideology can lead to lower levels of well-being.”

Conversely, Yancey pointed out, “a class-based progressive cognitive emphasis may focus less on the group identity, generating less of a need to rely on emotional narratives and dichotomous thinking and may be less likely to be detrimental to the well-being of a political progressive.”

Yancey tested this theory using data collected in the 2021 Baylor Religion Survey of 1,232 respondents.

“Certain types of political progressive ideology can have contrasting effects on well-being,” Yancey wrote. “It is plausible that identity politics may explain the recent increase well-being gap between conservatives and progressives.”

Oskari Lahtinen , a senior researcher in psychology at the University of Turku in Finland, published a study in March, “ Construction and Validation of a Scale for Assessing Critical Social Justice Attitudes ,” that reinforces Yancey’s argument.

Lahtinen conducted two surveys of a total of 5,878 men and women to determine the share of Finnish citizens who held “critical social justice attitudes” and how those who held such views differed from those who did not.

Critical social justice proponents, on Lahtinen’s scale,

point out varieties of oppression that cause privileged people (e.g., male, white, heterosexual, cisgender) to benefit over marginalized people (e.g., woman, Black, gay, transgender). In critical race theory, some of the core tenets include that (1) white supremacy and racism are omnipresent and colorblind policies are not enough to tackle them, (2) people of color have their own unique standpoint and (3) races are social constructs.

What did Lahtinen find?

The critical social justice propositions encountered

strong rejection from men. Women expressed more than twice as much support for the propositions. In both studies, critical social justice was correlated modestly with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness, but not more so than being on the political left was.

In an email responding to my inquiries about his paper, Lahtinen wrote that one of the key findings in his research was that “there were large differences between genders in critical social justice advocacy: Three out of five women but only one out of seven men expressed support for the critical social justice claims.”

In addition, he pointed out, “there was one variable in the study that closely corresponded to external locus of control: ‘Other people or structures are more responsible for my well-being than I myself am.’”

The correlation between agreement with this statement and unhappiness was among the strongest in the survey:

People on the left endorsed this item (around 2 on a scale of 0 to 4) far more than people on the right (around 0.5). Endorsing the belief was determined by political party preference much more than by gender, for instance.

Such measures as locus of control, self-esteem, a belief in personal agency and optimism all play major roles in daily life.

In a December 2022 paper, “ The Politics of Depression : Diverging Trends in Internalizing Symptoms Among U.S. Adolescents by Political Beliefs,” Catherine Gimbrone , Lisa M. Bates , Seth Prins and Katherine M. Keyes , all at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, noted that “trends in adolescent internalizing symptoms diverged by political beliefs, sex and parental education over time, with female liberal adolescents experiencing the largest increases in depressive symptoms, especially in the context of demographic risk factors, including parental education.”

“These findings,” they added, “indicate a growing mental health disparity between adolescents who identify with certain political beliefs. It is therefore possible that the ideological lenses through which adolescents view the political climate differentially affect their mental well-being.”

Gimbrone and her co-authors based their work on studies of 85,000 teenagers from 2005 to 2018. They found that

while internalizing symptom scores worsened over time for all adolescents, they deteriorated most quickly for female liberal adolescents. Beginning in approximately 2010 and continuing through 2018, female liberal adolescents reported the largest changes in depressive affect, self-esteem, self-derogation and loneliness.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “socially underprivileged liberals reported the worst internalizing symptom scores over time, likely indicating that the experiences and beliefs that inform a liberal political identity are ultimately less protective against poor mental health than those that inform a conservative political identity.”

From another vantage point, Nick Haslam , a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne, argued in his 2020 paper “ Harm Inflation: Making Sense of Concept Creep ” that recent years have seen “a rising sensitivity to harm within at least some Western cultures, such that previously innocuous or unremarked phenomena were increasingly identified as harmful and that this rising sensitivity reflected a politically liberal moral agenda.”

As examples, Haslam wrote that the definition of “trauma” has been

progressively broadened to include adverse life events of decreasing severity and those experienced vicariously rather than directly. “Mental disorder” came to include a wider range of conditions, so that new forms of psychopathology were added in each revision of diagnostic manuals and the threshold for diagnosing some existing forms was lowered. “Abuse” extended from physical acts to verbal and emotional slights and incorporated forms of passive neglect in addition to active aggression.

Haslam described this process as concept creep and argued that “some examples of concept creep are surely the work of deliberate actors who might be called expansion entrepreneurs.”

Concept expansion, Haslam wrote, “can be used as a tactic to amplify the perceived seriousness of a movement’s chosen social problem.” In addition, “such expansion can be effective means of enhancing the perceived seriousness of a social problem or threat by increasing the perceived prevalence of both ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators.’”

Haslam cited studies showing that strong “correlates of holding expansive concepts of harm were compassion-related trait values, left-liberal political attitudes and forms of morality associated with both.” Holding expansive concepts of harm was also “associated with affective and cognitive empathy orientation and most strongly of all with endorsement of harm- and fairness-based morality.” Many of these characteristics are associated with the political left.

“The expansion of harm-related concepts has implications for acceptable self-expression and free speech,” Haslam wrote. “Creeping concepts enlarge the range of expressions judged to be unacceptably harmful, thereby increasing calls for speech restrictions. Expansion of the harm-related concepts of hate and hate speech exemplifies this possibility.”

While much of the commentary on the progressive left has been critical, Haslam takes a more ambivalent position: “Sometimes concept creep is presented in an exclusively negative frame,” he wrote, but that fails to address the “positive implications. To that end, we offer three positive consequences of the phenomenon.”

The first is that expansionary definitions of harm “can be useful in drawing attention to harms previously overlooked. Consider the vertical expansion of abuse to include emotional abuse.”

Second, “concept creep can prevent harmful practices by modifying social norms.” For example, “changing definitions of bullying that include social exclusion and antagonistic acts expressed horizontally rather than only downward in organizational hierarchies may also entrench norms against the commission of destructive behavior.”

And finally:

The expansion of psychology’s negative concepts can motivate interventions aimed at preventing or reducing the harms associated with the newly categorized behaviors. For instance, the conceptual expansion of addiction to include behavioral addictions (e.g., gambling and internet addictions) has prompted a flurry of research into treatment options, which has found that a range of psychosocial treatments can be successfully used to treat gambling, internet and sexual addictions.

Judge suggested an approach to this line of inquiry that he believed might offer a way for liberalism to regain its footing:

I would like to think that there is a version of modern progressivism that accepts many of the premises of the problem and causes of inequality but does so in a way that also celebrates the power of individualism, of consensus and of common cause. I know this is perhaps naïve. But if we give in to cynicism (that consensus can’t be found), that’s self-reinforcing, isn’t it? I think about the progress on how society now views sexual orientation and the success stories. The change was too slow, painful for many, but was there any other way?

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall