JUSTICE POLICY CENTER

Racial and Ethnic Disparities
throughout the Criminal Legal System
A Result of Racist Policies and Discretionary Practices

Susan Nembhard and Lily Robin
August 2021
Differential treatment on the basis of race is well documented in the US criminal legal
system. Definitions of criminality and criminal activity are rooted in structural inequalities
between people of color and white people, and racist policies and practices have been used
to control and separate communities of color. In addition, discretion given to individual
system actors at each decision point in the system creates opportunities for racial biases to
influence practices toward and outcomes for system-involved people. Racial biases are so
deeply embedded in the criminal legal system that disparities based on race exist at each
decision point, impacting subsequent decision points and resulting in negative outcomes for
Black people and other people of color. It is imperative that researchers approach their
work with an understanding of how racist policies and implicit biases interact within and
throughout different aspects of the criminal legal system if they want to identify and
promulgate more equitable policies and research.

How Do We Define a Criminal Offense?
The United States has long created laws that have discriminated against people of color. Criminal
offenses and their definitions have been determined by people in power, meaning they have been
structured to maintain the status quo (Covington 1995). For example, the Black Codes and vagrancy
laws were used to maintain control over Black communities during and after Reconstruction (Hinton,

Henderson, and Reed 2018). Moreover, Jim Crow laws prevented communities of color from accessing
(often higher-quality) resources used by white communities, and economically based policies, such as
convict leasing, redlining, and credit score usage, have continued to prevent people of color from
generating wealth and developing resources in their neighborhoods and communities (Rothstein 2017).
In her 2010 book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, Michelle
Alexander illustrates how slavery and other laws and policies based explicitly on race have evolved into
the modern-day criminal legal system, which is at the surface race neutral but is designed to exert
control over people of color. She describes laws labeling people involved in nonviolent civil
disobedience as criminals, which emerged in the mid-1900s to combat antisegregation movements. This
desire to criminalize Black people and other integration allies persisted in further attempts to use law to
disempower nonwhites.
After segregation was lifted, its supporters began targeting people who supported integration and
had participated in the civil rights movement by introducing “get tough” rhetoric. This led to President
Reagan aggressively expanding the war on drugs in the 1980s, even though drug crime was declining
and only 3 percent of Americans reported being concerned about it (Alexander 2010).1 Reagan
promoted the us versus them narrative (known as othering) to implement “get tough” policies that
target people of color, primarily Black and Latine people, who had been stereotyped as commonly
engaging in criminal drug activity. As part of this war, the crack epidemic developed in inner cities, an
epidemic that Reagan’s media campaign sensationalized and publicized (Alexander 2010), paving the
way for laws that disproportionately targeted Black communities, such as harsh mandatory minimums
for low-level drug offenses and sentencing disparities between powder and crack cocaine (Ghandnoosh
2014).2 The war on drugs was used as a pretext to control communities of color. Further, false
narratives that people of color were criminal were promoted by the media and garnered support for
racist laws and policies.3
This disproportionate representation of people of color as perpetrators of crimes persists in
modern media, including in news media and political speeches (Dixon and Linz 2000; Dixon et al. 2019;
Gonzalez 2019; McMahon and Roberts 2011).4 These false perceptions of Black criminality feed into
and perpetuate a criminal legal system that is systemically racist. Research indicates that racial
prejudice and incorrect beliefs about the criminality of people of color contribute to calls for harsh
policing practices and sentencing and for fiscal support for the criminal legal system (Atwell Seate and
Mastro 2016, 2017; Barkan and Cohen 1994, 2005, 2006; Chiricos, Welch, and Gertz 2004).
Perceptions of the criminality of people of color are compounded by implicit dehumanizing bias, which
theories suggest may strongly influence decisions resulting in racial disparities (Mizel 2018). Further,
Donald Black (1976) suggests that those who maintain power in societies create laws that not only
support their power, but allow for differential access to law and protection from the government. More
recently, Kendi (2019) posited theories about how racism, which is built into and perpetuates existing
power structures, intersects with class and culture to marginalize communities of color. For example,
literacy tests and poll taxes disproportionately enacted by whites in the United States have affected

2

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Black people and other people of color, excluding them from political decisionmaking and restricting
their access to criminal legal system decisionmaking and change.

Racial Inequities Affect How Our Systems Operate
Racism is pervasive in the US criminal legal system, and racist policies and practices are evident
throughout the system and at each decision point of system involvement and case processing (Hinton
and Cook 2020).5

Policing
The first interaction many people have with the criminal legal system is with law enforcement. Research
demonstrates that police officers’ behavior is often discretionary and can be impacted by implicit bias
(Fridell 2017). Such biases result in officers connecting people to stereotypes based on identity
characteristics rather than actual behaviors. In the United States, stereotypes have associated Black
and Brown people with criminal activity, resulting in policing behavior that impacts those communities
differently and more severely than white communities (Fridell 2017). Research also shows that
predominantly Black neighborhoods are subject to higher rates of police-initiated contact regardless of
actual local crime rates (Fagan et al. 2010; Haldipur 2019), resulting in overpolicing of lower-level crime
and behaviors. Despite this, police tend to underpolice these communities when contact is community
initiated, such as during calls for service and requests for protection from harm (Prowse, Weaver, and
Meares 2019; Rios, Prieto, and Ibarra 2020).
Biases against people of color are evident in racial and ethnic disparities in police stops and policeinitiated contact. A 2016 study of policing in Oakland, California, found that Black residents accounted
for 60 percent of stops of any type (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle) by the police despite constituting
only 28 percent of the city’s population (Hetey et al. 2016). Black people are more likely than white
people to have experienced a police-initiated contact as their most recent contact with law
enforcement, including traffic stops and street stops (Davis, Whyde, and Langton 2018). In addition,
Black adults are more likely than white adults to report having been unfairly stopped by police because
of their race or ethnicity, and Black and Latine people are less likely to indicate street stops are
legitimate than white people (Davis, Whyde, and Langton 2018).6
Biases are particularly apparent when looking at disparities in officers’ discretionary actions.
Officers are more likely to stop Black and Latine drivers than white drivers for infractions they have
discretion to enforce, such as broken headlights, air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors, and how
long someone uses a turn signal before turning.7 Further, during traffic stops, officers search Black and
Latine drivers more often than white drivers, even though Black and Latine drivers carry contraband
(e.g., drugs and drug paraphernalia) at similar or lower rates (Baumgartner, Epp, and Shoub 2018; Epp,
Maynard-Moody, and Haider-Markel 2014; Hetey et al. 2016).8 Moreover, officers are less likely to
provide a reason for stopping Latine drivers than white drivers (Davis, Whyde, and Langton 2018).
Several research studies have demonstrated these disparities and have also found disparities in

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

3

outcomes of stops, such as disparities in search rates and arrests following traffic stops (Pierson et al.
2020).9
More generally, many policing policies and practices have been rooted in racial biases. In the United
States, one of the most common examples of bias in policing practices is the Broken Windows theory,
which drives policing strategies in New York City and has resulted in police contact and aggression
disproportionately directed at men of color (Berdejó 2018; Hinton, Henderson, and Reed 2018). Other
strategies including “hot-spot policing,” “dragnet policing,” and increased, more intense surveillance
tactics are also used by law enforcement in Black neighborhoods and exacerbate stereotypes about
criminality among communities of color (Hinton and Cook 2020). Another harmful policing practice,
stop and frisk, which the New York City Police Department used to racially profile people of color, was
ruled unconstitutional in 2013 on the grounds that it violated the constitutional rights of people of color
in the city; notably, racial profiling is not explicitly banned in policing in roughly a third of states (Brooks,
Brock, and Bolling-Williams 2014).10
These practices rooted in bias result in disproportionate arrests of and use of force against people
of color. Black people represent roughly 13 percent of the US population but account for roughly 27
percent of arrests, and American Indian/Alaskan Native people represent roughly 1.3 percent of the
population but account for 2.4 percent of arrests.11 Disparities are particularly stark when looking at
arrests for drug law violations: Black people experience over one-quarter of arrests for drug law
violations, despite similar rates of drug use among racial and ethnic groups.12
Police are also more likely to use force and excessive force against people of color during police
contact (Goff et al. 2016). Black and Latine people are more likely than white people to be threatened
with force during officer-initiated contact and to experience some form of force in interactions with
police (Davis, Whyde, and Langton 2018; Fryer 2016). A 2016 study of use of force across 12 local law
enforcement agencies found the same racial and ethnic disparities in the use of force as national studies
(Goff et al. 2016).
Furthermore, Black people are twice as likely as white people to be killed by police (36 per million
people versus 15 per million people, respectively) (Goff et al. 2016).13 This disparate killing of Black
people persists even when they and white people are unarmed: in 2018, more than 300 Black people
were killed by law enforcement, and one-quarter of them were unarmed (Bor et al. 2018). Moreover,
when police use force against community members, Black people are more than 2.8 times more likely to
die than white people (DeGue, Fowler, and Calkins 2016).
Research attempting to determine causal factors related to these disparities shows that variations
in crime rates do not explain differential treatment based on race in policing (Fridell 2017). As we have
discussed in this section, individual and systemic biases drive racial and ethnic disparities in policing in
the United States. Researchers conducting work on policing must continuously consider and
acknowledge the direct and indirect effects of these biases on the disparate treatment in and outcomes
of law enforcement contact by race.

4

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Case Processing and Incarceration
Reporting on case-processing data without addressing or recognizing factors related to racial bias and
differential outcomes related to race ignores the fundamental truth that the US criminal legal and court
systems are rooted in and perpetuate racial oppression, which allows data to be misrepresented and
stereotypes to be perpetuated. Racial disparities manifest in pretrial case processing and detention,
charging and sentencing decisions, and incarceration rates and treatment during incarceration.
Racial bias in the court system has been shown to affect pretrial outcomes directly and indirectly
and can be seen as a result of oppression and discriminatory practices (Hinton, Henderson, and Reed
2018).14 Because of the biases ingrained in this system, people of color are more likely to be assessed as
safety or flight risks and detained pretrial because they lack resources to pay fines, fees, and bail and
because they are more likely than white people to have a criminal record (Sentencing Project 2018).
Pretrial detention is not intended to be used as punishment or inflicted on someone absent legitimate
concerns about flight or safety risks, but this does not protect defendants from bias, because decisions
about pretrial detention are often discretionary and made arbitrarily based on a decisionmaker’s
understanding of who is and is not dangerous (Arnold, Dobbie, and Yang 2018).
These biases result in the disproportionate incarceration of Black people and American
Indian/Alaskan Native people in US jails (Zang and Minton 2019). People of color are not only more
likely to be denied bail altogether, but are also more likely to receive higher bail amounts than white
people and are often less likely to be able to afford it (Sentencing Project 2018).15 This results in longer
stays in pretrial detention and greater financial burden for system-involved people and their families.
Pretrial detention has been shown to negatively impact court outcomes. Being held in pretrial
detention increases the odds of someone accepting a less favorable plea deal, and pretrial detention is
linked to increased odds of conviction, sentences to prison, and longer sentences (Sentencing Project
2018). In addition, Black people are more likely than white people to receive punitive charges at
arraignment, and disparities persist as they move through the court system (Mizel 2018). Specifically,
research shows that in federal courts, prosecutors are more likely to charge Black people with offenses
that carry higher mandatory minimums than white people who are similarly situated, and in state courts,
prosecutors are more likely to charge Black people under habitual-offender laws than white people
(Crawford et al. 2006; Hinton, Henderson, and Reed 2018). Again, this can be seen as a result of the
implicit biases held by people empowered to make discretionary decisions (Mizel 2018).
The use of plea bargaining can also contribute to increased system involvement for people of color.
Research indicates that prosecutors may be relying on race as a proxy for criminality and likelihood of
dangerous future offending, impacting plea offers.16 More specifically, as a result of prosecutorial
discretion, white people are more likely to have their initial charges dropped or lessened, and are thus
more likely to be convicted of crimes without incarceration time or not be convicted at all (Berdejó
2018).17 This creates disparities in the types of charges people of color are convicted of and the
penalties they receive, affecting their sentencing outcomes (Kansal 2005; Mitchell and MacKenzie
2004).

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

5

Biases throughout the court process also result in racial and ethnic disparities in prisons. Black,
Latine, and American Indian/Alaskan Native people are often placed in more secure facilities and are
incarcerated for longer periods than white people (Sentencing Project 2018), and Black people are
incarcerated at rates higher than white people, with particularly stark disparities in some states (Carson
2020; Nellis 2016). At the end of 2019, 1,096 per 100,000 Black people in the United States were
incarcerated in federal and state prisons, compared with 214 per 100,000 white people (Carson 2020).
Black people are incarcerated in state prisons at 5.1 times the rate of white people and at a rate of more
than 10 to 1 in Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin (Nellis 2016). Moreover, once
incarcerated, people of color are more likely to be disciplined and charged with misconducts. A New York
Times report about prisons in New York found that, while incarcerated, Black and Latine people were
more likely than white people to be disciplined and placed in solitary confinement.18 It found even larger
disparities in discipline rates in situations allowing correctional officers to use discretion.

Parole and Community Supervision
The biases that result in longer and more severe sentences and more disciplinary actions for people of
color can also impact parole decisions, which consider people’s behavior during incarceration, crime
severity, criminal history, incarceration length, mental health, and victim input (Caplan 2007). 19 Black
people spend more time in prison awaiting parole than white people (Huebner and Bynum 2008), and
although race is not directly considered in parole decisions, racial and ethnic discrimination in
sentencing can result in people of color serving more severe and longer sentences. In addition, biased
policing behavior contributes to longer criminal records. Black people are also subject to more
conditions to satisfy (e.g., completing a treatment program) before being released than white people
(Carroll and Mondrick 1976; Petersilia 1985). Importantly, parole decisions result in biased parole
outcomes because they consider factors that have been impacted by bias upstream in the criminal legal
system.
Furthermore, because parole boards, judges, and other officials also have discretion over these
decisions, factors including perceptions of remorse and inherent criminality can introduce additional
bias.20 Subjective by nature, perceptions of whether someone is remorseful can be impacted by cultural
bias and other stereotypes, and expectations of remorse disadvantage people who have been
wrongfully convicted (Khalikaprasad 2020). This additional opportunity for personal bias impacts the
system, resulting in continued negative outcomes for communities of color. For example, one study
found that, among people who have committed their first offense and are awaiting parole, Black people
serve four more months on average than white people (Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001). Another study
found that, at their first parole hearing, less than one in six Black and Latine men were released, whereas
one in four white men were.21
Racial and ethnic disparities are also present in community supervision: Black men are 3.5 times
more likely than white men to be under some form of community supervision.22 Moreover, Black people
under community supervision are more likely than white people to have their parole or probation
revoked (Jannetta et al. 2014). An Urban Institute study of revocations in four jurisdictions found that

6

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

differences in criminal history and risk assessment scores contributed to racial disparities in revocation
rates (Jannetta et al. 2014). The use of criminal history in revocation decisions is impacted by biases in
policing and sentencing. Racist policies and practices in community supervision are not only impacted by
biases upstream in the criminal legal system, but also effect outcomes. When researchers discuss
findings about community supervision and parole, they must consider these biases and disparities if
they want the data they share and publish to be accurate.

Algorithms, Assessments, and Technology
Risk assessment tools often include measures (e.g., criminal history) that result in racial bias because of
biases throughout the criminal legal system (Freeman, Hu, and Jannetta 2021).23 In addition, the
outcomes these tools measure are products of structural racism. For instance, with respect to likelihood
of reoffending, true reoffending cannot be measured, so proxies (such as rearrest) that are impacted by
systemic racism and individual biases throughout the criminal legal system are used instead. These
proxies in part measure the racism of the system rather than an individual’s risk of the outcome in
question.
In addition to bias in assessments that rely on criminal legal system data, racial bias has been found
in the use of several other types of algorithms and technologies used in the criminal legal system. For
example, studies show that machine-learning algorithm software like facial recognition often
discriminate based on race (Buolamwini and Gebru 2018).24 As with other areas of the criminal legal
system, the discussion of risk assessment tools and other predictive technology can be easily
misinterpreted, or wrongly communicated when systemic racism is not taken into account.

Research Implications
The practices we describe have greatly contributed to the overpolicing of communities of color and to
disparities throughout the criminal legal system for Black people and other people of color. In addition
to understanding the history of racism in the US criminal legal system and the biases that currently
pervade it, it is imperative that researchers bring this understanding to their work and fully
acknowledge that racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal legal system are caused by racist policies
and practices. Researchers can start doing this by using the knowledge and lived experience of the
communities most involved in the criminal legal system, framing designs with this history and context in
mind, and being mindful of language choices. In this vein, we provide researchers the following
recommendations.

Be Mindful of Language
When describing findings, organizing research strategies, or discussing past literature, it is paramount
that researchers use language that does not perpetuate racial stereotypes and biases. Doing this means
understanding the history of such language and the connotations of language surrounding the criminal
legal system. Using language that wrongly attributes crime to certain racial or ethnic groups because of

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

7

past disparities further harms the communities most victimized by the criminal legal system. For
example, this brief uses “criminal legal system” rather than “criminal justice system” because the system
is not just for many. Moreover, the notions of “warranted” and “unwarranted” disparities imply that
some degree of racial and ethnic disparity in the system is acceptable and is even the result of
characteristics inherent to racial and ethnic groups. Using this language is harmful and perpetuates false
race-based stereotypes. The language also neglects to acknowledge the history of racism and context
outside of the criminal legal system that lead to racial and ethnic disparities within the system

Frame Research Questions with the Appropriate Context
Research questions must reflect and acknowledge the history of racist policies and practices in the
criminal legal system and the role of current racial bias and individual discretion in case processing and
at each decision point. Researchers should be aware not only of how their biases have shaped their
understanding of the issues in question, but of how biases affect how they approach their research and
the theories and research questions they use to guide their work. For example, instead of asking "What
amount of racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing for drug-related offenses are warranted (e.g., not
driven by actions within the criminal legal system)?” ask “What component of existing racial and ethnics
disparities in sentencing for drug-related offenses are driven by factors outside the current criminal
legal system?"

Contextualize Statistics with History and Drivers
Statistics in published research should not be presented without the history, context, and drivers that
surround them. Among types of research findings, statistics in particular can be used to drive racist
ideologies when presented without background on where disparities come from and how they affect
each area of the criminal legal system. Researchers should strive to provide statistical information and
findings in their proper context, explain factors that may be driving disparities, and note how racial
biases are woven into the system. For example, when discussing statistics of incarceration rates for
drug-related offenses, include the history of racially motivated drug-related laws and enforcement. The
statistics alone may reinforce stereotypes about race and drug use, which additional context can help
prevent.

Use Community-Engaged Methods
Community-engaged methods rely on the knowledge and experiences of the people at the center of a
research topic and shift the power away from researchers and to affected communities—in this case,
those most represented in the criminal legal system. Partnering with these communities throughout the
entire research process helps ensure decisionmaking is rooted in lived experience rather than biases
and stereotypes. Furthermore, it allows for research questions and findings that are relevant to the
populations of interest.

8

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Notes
1

“A Brief History of the Drug War,” Drug Policy Alliance, June 25, 2021, https://drugpolicy.org/issues/briefhistory-drug-war.

2

“Race and the Drug War,” Drug Policy Alliance, accessed May 25, 2021, https://drugpolicy.org/issues/briefhistory-drug-war.

3

“Fight against world drug problem must address unjust impact on people of African descent, say UN rights
experts,” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, March 14, 2019,
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24332&LangID=E.

4

“President Trump’s Inaugural Address, Annotated,” NPR, January 20, 2017,
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510629447/watch-live-president-trumps-inauguration-ceremony.

5

Alice George, “The 1968 Kerner Commission Got it Right, but Nobody Listened,” Smithsonian Magazine, March 1,
2018, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/1968-kerner-commission-got-it-rightnobody-listened-180968318/.

6

Drew DeSilver, Michael Lipka, and Dalia Fahmy, “10 Things We Know about Race and Policing in the U.S.,” Pew
Research Center, June 3, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-knowabout-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/.

7

Libby Doyle and Susan Nembhard, “Police Traffic Stops Have Little to Do with Public Safety,” Urban Wire (blog),
Urban Institute, April 26, 2021, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/police-traffic-stops-have-little-do-publicsafety.

8

“Findings,” The Stanford Open Policing Project, accessed May 25, 2021,
https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/.

9

Radley Balko, “There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist. Here’s the proof.”
Washington Post, June 10, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racismpolice-evidence-criminal-justice-system/.

10

“Case Study: New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policies,” Catalysts for Collaboration, accessed May 27, 2021,
https://catalystsforcollaboration.org/case-study-floyd-v-city-of-new-york/; Taahira Thompson, “NYPD’s
Infamous Stop-and Frisk Policy Found Unconstitutional,” The Leadership Conference Education Fund, August
21, 2013, https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-and-frisk-policy-foundunconstitutional/.

11

QuickFacts population estimates, July 1, 2019, United States Census Bureau,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219; Crime in the United States, Table 43A: Arrests
by Race and Ethnicity, 2019, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform
Crime Reporting Program, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topicpages/tables/table-43.

12

Table 20: Use of selected substances in the past month among persons aged 12 years and over, by age, sex, and
race and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 2002–2018, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2019/020-508.pdf; Crime in the United States, Table 43A: Arrests by Race
and Ethnicity, 2019, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

13

Julie Tate, Jennifer Jenkins, Steven Rich, John Muyskens, Joe Fox, David Fallis, and Danielle Rindler, “Fatal
Force,” Washington Post, last updated May 27, 2021,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/.

14

Wendy Sawyer, “How Race Impacts Who Is Detained Pretrial,” Prison Policy Initiative, October 9, 2019,
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/10/09/pretrial_race.

15

Sawyer, “How Race Impacts Who Is Detained Pretrial.”

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

9

16

“Research Finds Evidence of Racial Bias in Plea Deals,” Equal Justice Initiative, October 26, 2017,
https://eji.org/news/research-finds-racial-disparities-in-plea-deals/.

17

“Research Finds Evidence of Racial Bias in Plea Deals,” Equal Justice Initiative.

18

Michael Schwirtz, Michael Winerip, and Robert Gebeloff, “The Scourge of Racial Bias in New York State’s
Prisons,” New York Times, December 3, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/nyregion/new-york-stateprisons-inmates-racial-bias.html.

19

Schwirtz, Winerip, and Gebeloff, “The Scourge of Racial Bias in New York State’s Prisons.”

20

“The Color of Justice,” Constitutional Rights Foundation, accessed May 27, 2021, https://www.crfusa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html.

21

Michael Winerip, Michael Schwirtz, and Robert Gebeloff, “For Blacks Facing Parole in New York State, Signs of a
Broken System,” New York Times, December 4, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/nyregion/newyork-prisons-inmates-parole-race.html.

22

Jake Horowitz and Connie Utada, “Community Supervision Marked by Racial and Gender Disparities: AfricanAmericans, Men Overrepresented in Probation and Parole Population,” Pew Charitable Trusts, December 6,
2018, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/12/06/community-supervisionmarked-by-racial-and-gender-disparities.

23

William Douglas Heaven, “Predictive Policing Algorithms Are Racist. They Need to Be Dismantled,” MIT
Technology Review, July 17, 2020, https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/17/1005396/predictivepolicing-algorithms-racist-dismantled-machine-learning-bias-criminal-justice/; Rebecca Heilweil, “Why
Algorithms Can Be Racist and Sexist,” Vox, February 18, 2020,
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognitiontransparency; John Murray, “Racist Data? Human Bias is Infecting AI Development,” Towards Data Science,
April, 24, 2019, https://towardsdatascience.com/racist-data-human-bias-is-infecting-ai-development8110c1ec50c.

24

Meilan Solly, “Art Project Shows Racial Biases in Artificial Intelligence System,” Smithsonian Magazine, September
24, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-project-exposed-racial-biases-artificialintelligence-system-180973207/.

References
Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press.
Arnold, David, Will Dobbie, and Crystal S. Yang. 2018. “Racial Bias in Bail Decisions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics
133 (4): 1,885–932.
Atwell Seate, Anita, and Dana Mastro. 2016. “Media’s Influence on Immigration Attitudes: An Intergroup Threat
Theory Approach.” Communication Monographs 83 (2): 194–213.
———. 2017. “Exposure to Immigration in the News: The Impact of Group-Level Emotions on Intergroup Behavior.”
Communication Research 44 (6): 817–40.
Barkan, Steven E., and Steven F. Cohn. 1994. “Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31 (2): 202–09.
———. 2005. “Why Whites Favor Spending More Money to Fight Crime: The Role of Racial Prejudice.” Social
Problems 52 (2): 300–14.
———. 2006. “Racial Prejudice and Support by Whites for Police Use of Force: A Research Note.” Justice Quarterly 15
(4): 743–53.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Derek A. Epp, and Kelsey Shoub, 2018. Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us
About Policing and Race. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press.

10

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Berdejó, Carlos. 2018. “Criminalizing Race: Racial Disparities in Plea-Bargaining.” Boston College Law Review 59 (4):
1,187–249.
Black, Donald J. 1976. The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
Bor, Jacob, Atheendar S. Venkataramani, David R. Williams, and Alexander C. Tsai. 2018. “Police Killings and Their
Spillover Effects on the Mental Health of Black Americans: A Population-Based, Quasi-Experimental Study.” The
Lancet (British Edition), 392 (10144): 302–10.
Brooks, Cornell W., Roslyn M. Brock, and Barbara Bolling-Williams. 2014. Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frist Abuse & the
Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America. Baltimore: The National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People.
Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. 2018. “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial
Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81: 77–91.
Caplan, Joel M. 2007. “What Factors Affect Parole: A Review of Empirical Research.” Federal Probation 71 (1).
Carson, E. Ann. 2020. “Prisoners in 2019.” Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Carroll Leo, and Margaret E. Mondrick. 1976 “Racial Bias in the Decision to Grant Parole.” Law & Society Review 11:
93–107.
Chiricos, Ted, Kelly Welch, and Mark Gertz. 2004. “Racial Typification of Crime and Support for Punitive
Measures.” Criminology 42 (2): 358–390.
Covington, Jeanette. 1995. “Racial Classification in Criminology: The Reproduction of Racialized Crime.”
Sociological Forum 10 (4): 547–68.
Crawford, Charles, Ted G. Chiricos, and Gary Kleck. 1998. “Race, Racial Threat, and Sentencing of Habitual
Offenders.” Criminology, 36 (3): 481–512.
Davis, Elizabeth, Anthony Whyde, and Lynn Langton. 2018. “Contacts between Police and the Public, 2015.”
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
DeGue, Sarah, Katherine A. Fowler, and Cynthia Calkins. 2016. “Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law
Enforcement: Findings from the National Violent Death Reporting System, 17 U.S. States, 2009–2012.” American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51 (5): S173–S187.
Dixon, Travis L., and Daniel Linz. 2000. “Overrepresentation and Underrepresentation of African Americans and
Latinos as Lawbreakers on Television News.” Journal of Communication 50 (2): 131–54.
Dixon, Travis L., Kristopher R. Weeks, and Marisa A. Smith. 2019. “Media Constructions of Culture, Race, and
Ethnicity.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford, GBR: Oxford University Press.
Epp, Charles R., Steven Maynard-Moody, and Donald Haider-Markel. 2014. Pulled Over: How Police Stops Define Race
and Citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fagan, Jeffrey, Amanda Geller, Garth Davies, and Valerie West. 2010. “Street Stops and Broken Windows
Revisited.” In Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings, edited by Stephen K. Rice and Michael D.
White. 309–48. New York: NYU Press.
Freeman, Kelly Roberts, Cathy Hu, and Jesse Jannetta. 2021. “Racial Equity and Criminal Justice Risk Assessment.”
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Fridell, Lorie A. 2017. Producing Bias-Free Policing: A Science-Based Approach. New York: Springer.
Fryer Roland G., Jr. 2016. “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force.” Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Ghandnoosh, Nazgol. 2014. “Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies.”
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Goff, Phillip A., Tracey Lloyd, Amanda Geller, Steven Raphael, and Jack Glaser. 2016. The Science of Justice: Race,
Arrests, and Police Use of Force. Los Angeles: Center for Policing Equity.

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

11

Gonzalez, Eduardo. 2019. “Stereotypical Depictions of Latino Criminality: US Latinos in the Media during the
MAGA Campaign.” Democratic Communiqué 28 (1): 46.
Haldipur, Jan. 2018. No Place on the Corner: The Costs of Aggressive Policing. New York: NYU Press.
Hinton, Elizabeth, and DeAnza Cook. 2020. “The Mass Criminalization of Black Americans: A Historical Overview.”
Annual Review of Criminology 4: 261–86.
Hinton, Elizabeth, LeShae Henderson, and Cindy Reed. 2018. “An Unjust Burden: The Disparate Treatment of Black
Americans in the Criminal Justice System.” New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Huebner, Beth M., and Timothy Bynum. 2008. “The Role of Race and Ethnicity in Parole Decisions.” Criminology 46
(4): 907–38.
Hughes Timothy A., Doris James Wilson, and Allen J. Beck. 2001. Trends in State Parole: 1990–2000. Washington,
DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Jannetta, Jesse, Justin Breaux, Helen Ho, and Jeremy Porter. 2014. Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Probation Revocation: Summary Findings and Implications from a Multisite Study. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Kansal, Tushar. 2005. Racial Disparities in Sentencing: A Review of the Literature. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project.
Kendi, Ibram. 2019. How to Be an Antiracist. London: Bodley Head.
Khalikaprasad, Lovashni. 2020. “Remorse, Not Race: Essence of Parole Release?” Journal of Race, Gender, and
Ethnicity 9 (1): 131–49.
Hetey, Rebecca C., Benoît Monin, Amrita Maitreyi, and Jennifer L. Eberhardt. 2016. Data for Change: A Statistical
Analysis of Police Stops, Searches, Handcuffings, and Arrests in Oakland, Calif., 2013–2014. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions.
McMahon, Will, and Rebecca Roberts. 2011. “Truth and Lies about ‘Race’ and ‘Crime’.” London: Centre for Crime
and Justice Studies.
Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2004. “The Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing
Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research.” Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs.
Mizel, Matthew L. 2018. “A Plea for Justice: Racial Bias in Pretrial Decision Making.” PhD. diss., University of
California, Los Angeles.
Nellis, Ashley. 2016. The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons. Washington, DC: Sentencing
Project.
Petersilia Joan. 1985. “Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System: a Summary.” Crime & Delinquency 31 (1):
15–34.
Pierson, Emma, Camelia Simoiu, Jan Overgoor, Sam Corbett-Davies, Daniel Jenson, Amy Shoemaker, Vignesh
Ramachandran, Phoebe Barghouty, Cheryl Phillips, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel. 2020. “A Large-Scale Analysis
of Racial Disparities in Police Stops across the United States.” Nature Human Behaviour 4 (7): 736–45.
Prowse, Gwen, Vesla M. Weaver, and Tracey L. Meares. 2020. “The State from Below: Distorted Responsiveness in
Policed Communities.” Urban Affairs Review 56 (5): 1,423–471.
Rios, Victor, Greg Prieto, and Jonathan M. Ibarra. 2020. “Mano Suave–Mano Dura: Legitimacy Policing and Latino
Stop-and-Frisk.” American Sociological Review 85 (1): 58–75.
Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. 1st
ed. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Sentencing Project. 2018. Report of the Sentencing Project to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary
Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance: Regarding Racial Disparities in the United
States Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project.
Thorkildsen, Zoe, Emma Wohl, Bryan Walther, Bridgette Bryson, and Brittany Cunningham. 2019. Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office Traffic Stops Analysis Report: July 2017–December 2018. Phoenix: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

12

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Wallace, Danielle, David H. Tyler, Kelsey Kramer, Katherine G. Kempany, Brooks Louton, Gary Sweeten, Norah
Ylang, Ana Daniels, Matthew Gricius, and Julianna Hale. 2018. Annual Report for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office: Years 2016 to 2017. Phoenix: ASU Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety.
Zang, Zhen, and Todd D. Minton. 2019. “Jail Inmates in 2019.” Washington, DC: United States Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM

13

About the Authors
Susan Nembhard is a research analyst in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where she
conducts mixed-methods research on victimization, community policing, and crime reduction with a
focus on racial equity and community approaches to safety. Before joining Urban, Nembhard was a
police misconduct investigator in Washington, DC. She has also conducted research as a part of Seattle
University's evaluation of the Micro-Community Policing Plans project with the Seattle Police
Department.
Lily Robin is a research associate in the Justice Policy Center, where she works on research projects
related to juvenile justice, public safety and policing, and disability in the criminal legal system. Before
joining Urban, Robin worked in criminal legal system research and technical assistance with a focus on
law enforcement. She holds a master of public policy degree from the George Washington University
and a BA focused on the school-to-prison pipeline from New York University.

Acknowledgments
This brief was funded by the Urban Institute. The views expressed are those of the authors and should
not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research
findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban
Institute’s funding principles is available at urban.org/fundingprinciples.

ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE

: : :URBAN
• • • • I N S T I T U T I

500 L’Enfant Plaza SW
Washington, DC 20024
www.urban.org

14

The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to
developing evidence-based insights that improve people’s lives and strengthen
communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for rigorous analysis
of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers,
philanthropists, and practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand
opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that advance fairness and
enhance the well-being of people and places.
Copyright © August 2021. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction
of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute.

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM