an article by Michelle VanNatta (Dominican University, River Forest, Illinois, USA) pulished in Safer Communities Volume 18 Issue 3/4 (2019)
Abstract
Purpose
As the US criminal justice system and immigration system increasingly interconnect, even immigration policy that is facially race-neutral may involve biased practices. The purpose of this paper is to examine how institutional racism in criminal legal processes creates particular barriers for many individuals of Latin American and/or African descent facing deportation proceedings in US immigration courts, particularly in assertions regarding gang affiliation.
Design/methodology/approach
This research is based on ethnographic observation. The work utilized a grounded theory approach. The observation took place at public master calendar hearings at a Midwestern immigration court between 2013 and 2015, yielding over 400 pages of fieldnotes that were coded and analyzed for patterns.
Findings
Non-citizens in the USA, including lawful permanent residents, are subject to deportation if labeled “criminal.” Racial profiling and criminalization of communities of color create heightened risk of deportation. Assumptions that common tattoos or urban fashion indicate criminality, reliance on Facebook posts to “prove” gang membership, and the use of arrest records as evidence of criminality even if charges were dropped all put immigrants of Latin American and/or African descent at heightened risk.
Research limitations/implications
The ethnographic method used has strong validity but weaker reliability and generalizability.
Practical implications
This paper can help analysts, policymakers and advocates consider how to adapt systems to increase equity.
Originality/value
This research provides direct examples and ethnographic evidence of how race and cultural bias in criminal legal processes and immigration policies can affect people in deportation proceedings.
Showing posts with label criminalisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminalisation. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 November 2019
Thursday, 31 October 2019
Race, criminalization, and embedded discrimination in immigration court
an article by Michelle VanNatta (Dominican University, River Forest, Illinois, USA) published in Safer Communities Volume 18 Issue 3/4 (2019)
Abstract
Purpose
As the US criminal justice system and immigration system increasingly interconnect, even immigration policy that is facially race-neutral may involve biased practices. The purpose of this paper is to examine how institutional racism in criminal legal processes creates particular barriers for many individuals of Latin American and/or African descent facing deportation proceedings in US immigration courts, particularly in assertions regarding gang affiliation.
Design/methodology/approach
This research is based on ethnographic observation. The work utilized a grounded theory approach. The observation took place at public master calendar hearings at a Midwestern immigration court between 2013 and 2015, yielding over 400 pages of fieldnotes that were coded and analyzed for patterns.
Findings
Non-citizens in the USA, including lawful permanent residents, are subject to deportation if labeled “criminal.” Racial profiling and criminalization of communities of color create heightened risk of deportation. Assumptions that common tattoos or urban fashion indicate criminality, reliance on Facebook posts to “prove” gang membership, and the use of arrest records as evidence of criminality even if charges were dropped all put immigrants of Latin American and/or African descent at heightened risk.
Research limitations/implications
The ethnographic method used has strong validity but weaker reliability and generalizability.
Practical implications
This paper can help analysts, policymakers and advocates consider how to adapt systems to increase equity.
Originality/value
This research provides direct examples and ethnographic evidence of how race and cultural bias in criminal legal processes and immigration policies can affect people in deportation proceedings.
Abstract
Purpose
As the US criminal justice system and immigration system increasingly interconnect, even immigration policy that is facially race-neutral may involve biased practices. The purpose of this paper is to examine how institutional racism in criminal legal processes creates particular barriers for many individuals of Latin American and/or African descent facing deportation proceedings in US immigration courts, particularly in assertions regarding gang affiliation.
Design/methodology/approach
This research is based on ethnographic observation. The work utilized a grounded theory approach. The observation took place at public master calendar hearings at a Midwestern immigration court between 2013 and 2015, yielding over 400 pages of fieldnotes that were coded and analyzed for patterns.
Findings
Non-citizens in the USA, including lawful permanent residents, are subject to deportation if labeled “criminal.” Racial profiling and criminalization of communities of color create heightened risk of deportation. Assumptions that common tattoos or urban fashion indicate criminality, reliance on Facebook posts to “prove” gang membership, and the use of arrest records as evidence of criminality even if charges were dropped all put immigrants of Latin American and/or African descent at heightened risk.
Research limitations/implications
The ethnographic method used has strong validity but weaker reliability and generalizability.
Practical implications
This paper can help analysts, policymakers and advocates consider how to adapt systems to increase equity.
Originality/value
This research provides direct examples and ethnographic evidence of how race and cultural bias in criminal legal processes and immigration policies can affect people in deportation proceedings.
Tuesday, 15 October 2019
Too many children in care end up in the criminal justice system – we need to do better – Family Law
an article by Laura Cooper for the Family Law blog
"This article was originally published on the Just For Kids Law website and WAS reproduced with permission."
Laura Cooper writes about the crucial role that youth justice lawyers have to play in reducing the criminalisation of looked after children at the police station.
Imagine this scenario: A teenager gets into an argument with their parents. Voices are raised and the child refuses to follow mum and dad’s instructions. The parents call the police, who arrive to take the child into custody.
This might sound unlikely, because it is. Most parents understand that calling the police to intervene in a disagreement with their children is a last resort that should only be taken in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, the same is not true for children in care. Recent research from the Howard League for Penal Reform revealed that children’s homes in some parts of England are calling the police as many as 200 times a year. [Link is only to a press release not to a report on the research.] Repeated contact with the criminal justice system puts children at risk of criminalisation, as they end up being pulled into a strong current of crime from which it is difficult to escape.
The children we are concerned about are some of society’s most vulnerable. Looked after children are likely to have experienced multiple disadvantage, trauma and abuse which can contribute to challenging behaviour and other difficulties. They may have also been affected by problems inherent to the care system which are known to adversely impact on support, well-being and behaviour, such as instability in terms of placement and social worker. And whilst some children’s homes and foster carers are excellent and provide specialist care which ensures challenging behaviour is addressed and supported, too many looked after children find themselves in placements where they don’t get the support they need, and the police get called unnecessarily. These factors all contribute to a situation where children in care are 10 times more likely to be criminalised than other children.
Continue reading
"This article was originally published on the Just For Kids Law website and WAS reproduced with permission."
Laura Cooper writes about the crucial role that youth justice lawyers have to play in reducing the criminalisation of looked after children at the police station.
Imagine this scenario: A teenager gets into an argument with their parents. Voices are raised and the child refuses to follow mum and dad’s instructions. The parents call the police, who arrive to take the child into custody.
This might sound unlikely, because it is. Most parents understand that calling the police to intervene in a disagreement with their children is a last resort that should only be taken in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, the same is not true for children in care. Recent research from the Howard League for Penal Reform revealed that children’s homes in some parts of England are calling the police as many as 200 times a year. [Link is only to a press release not to a report on the research.] Repeated contact with the criminal justice system puts children at risk of criminalisation, as they end up being pulled into a strong current of crime from which it is difficult to escape.
The children we are concerned about are some of society’s most vulnerable. Looked after children are likely to have experienced multiple disadvantage, trauma and abuse which can contribute to challenging behaviour and other difficulties. They may have also been affected by problems inherent to the care system which are known to adversely impact on support, well-being and behaviour, such as instability in terms of placement and social worker. And whilst some children’s homes and foster carers are excellent and provide specialist care which ensures challenging behaviour is addressed and supported, too many looked after children find themselves in placements where they don’t get the support they need, and the police get called unnecessarily. These factors all contribute to a situation where children in care are 10 times more likely to be criminalised than other children.
Continue reading
Tuesday, 23 October 2018
Public Spaces Protection Orders: a critical policy analysis
an article by Vicky Heap and Jill Dickinson (Sheffield Hallam University, UK) published in Safer Communities Volume 17 Issue 3 (2018)
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to critically appraise the Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) policy that was introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014). Within a designated area assigned by the local council, PSPOs can prohibit or require specific behaviours to improve the quality of life for people inhabiting that space. Those who do not comply face a fixed penalty notice of £100 or a fine of £1,000 on summary conviction. However, the practical and theoretical impact associated with the development of these powers has yet to be fully explored.
Design/methodology/approach
Using Bannister and O’Sullivan’s (2013) discussion of civility and anti-social behaviour policy as a starting point, the authors show how PSPOs could create new frontiers in exclusion, intolerance and criminalisation, as PSPOs enable the prohibition of any type of behaviour perceived to negatively affect the quality of life.
Findings
Local councils in England and Wales now have unlimited and unregulated powers to control public spaces. The authors suggest that this has the potential to produce localised tolerance thresholds and civility agendas that currently target and further marginalise vulnerable people, and the authors highlight street sleeping homeless people as one such group.
Originality/value
There has been little academic debate on this topic. This paper raises a number of original, conceptual questions that provide an analytical framework for future empirical research. The authors also use original data from Freedom of Information requests to contextualise the discussions.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to critically appraise the Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) policy that was introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014). Within a designated area assigned by the local council, PSPOs can prohibit or require specific behaviours to improve the quality of life for people inhabiting that space. Those who do not comply face a fixed penalty notice of £100 or a fine of £1,000 on summary conviction. However, the practical and theoretical impact associated with the development of these powers has yet to be fully explored.
Design/methodology/approach
Using Bannister and O’Sullivan’s (2013) discussion of civility and anti-social behaviour policy as a starting point, the authors show how PSPOs could create new frontiers in exclusion, intolerance and criminalisation, as PSPOs enable the prohibition of any type of behaviour perceived to negatively affect the quality of life.
Findings
Local councils in England and Wales now have unlimited and unregulated powers to control public spaces. The authors suggest that this has the potential to produce localised tolerance thresholds and civility agendas that currently target and further marginalise vulnerable people, and the authors highlight street sleeping homeless people as one such group.
Originality/value
There has been little academic debate on this topic. This paper raises a number of original, conceptual questions that provide an analytical framework for future empirical research. The authors also use original data from Freedom of Information requests to contextualise the discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
