African-American Youth in The Juvenile Justice System

Both selective inattention (ignoring the other point of view) and the either-or approach
(mutually exclusive points of view), which have characterized academic and public
discourse on race, crime and justice, are problematic in several respects. These
explanations not only pose a false dichotomy, but they also oversimplify what is a very
complex set of social phenomena. These approaches also detract from increasingly
promising efforts by scholars and others to develop and examine more inclusive and
complex models that may more fully account for the multiple factors that contribute to
racial and ethnic disproportionality in the nation's justice system.
Key Terms
There is considerable confusion and variation in the meaning of terms used to examine
and describe the racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. This confusion has
contributed to divergent findings regarding the presence or absence of racial bias in the
justice system and the tendency to attribute all racial differences in system outcomes to
prejudice and bigotry (Walker et al., 1996). Therefore, it is important at the outset of this
discussion to define the terms we will use. In this report, we use the terms disparity and
disproportionality to refer to situations in which minority group members are either
under- or overrepresented relative to their proportion in the general population. There is
no judgment about the cause of the observed disparity; it may stem from differences in
actual behavior, or from decision making within the system, including legitimate and
extralegal factors, or both.
“Race” has been defined as phenotypic differences in skin color, hair, texture, and other
physical attributes that have historically been perceived by some as the surface
manifestations or markers of deeper, underlying differences in intelligence,
temperament, physical prowess, sexuality, and propensity toward crime and violence.
However, biologists, geneticists, and physical anthropologists, among others, have
reached the conclusion that race is a biologically meaningless category, and not a
scientific concept based on discernible biological differences among the various
groupings commonly referred to as races today. In addition, cultural and social
anthropologists, sociologists, and behavioral scientists have noted that the attributes
often associated with specific racial categories are based frequently on stereotype
rather than on evidence of actual differences across groups. Moreover, scientific
research often reports as much behavioral and cultural difference within races as
between them. Yet there continues to be popular acceptance of race as a social
construct, and an important organizing principle of individual identity, collective
consciousness, and institutional life (Bobo, in press).
The term racial disparity, rather than ethnic disparity, is used in this chapter since most
of the evidence available does not permit an examination of disproportionality by
various ethnic groups, nor does the literature appropriately distinguish ethnicity within
the racially designated groups. Using the term racial disparity in this chapter is largely a
reflection of the kind of data available. Most official arrest data, as well as victimization
and self-report surveys, do not permit an examination of disproportionality by the
numerous ethnic groups found in the United States today. Classification as Hispanic
Page 48 of 114