Institutional policies can make even fair-minded individual officers reproduce racial disparities

Evidence

Even in the absence of actors who are vulnerable to the effects of bias, institutions themselves can be biased by having policies and structures in place that harm some people and favor others, even in unintended and unanticipated ways. This is what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has referred to as “racism without racists” (2003). For example, policies that specifically apply to people who have criminal records (e.g., probation/ parole searches by police) can seemingly have nothing to do with race. To the extent that Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated in this country (see Alexander, 2010; Western, 2006), however, those policies will have a disparate impact on the Black community. In turn, the institutional actors responsible for carrying out those policies will enact racial disparities, even if unwittingly. In this way, bias can be built into structures and institutions and can contribute to how individuals police and are policed. Though this might sound bleak, the encouraging news is that by changing institutional priorities, norms, practices, and policies, we can mitigate disparities. In the same vein, an underappreciated, and perhaps underutilized, function of institutions is their ability to put into place policies and practices that act as guard rails that curb the expression of potentially problematic individual tendencies, such as implicit bias. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 398 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Our work is designed for contexts when the district attorney and a significant majority of the assistant district attorneys (ADAs) and others in the office generally share egalitarian values and seek to adhere to the rule of law, but find that their outcomes show disproportionate incarceration of people who are Black, Native American, or Latino. Our goal is for them to assess whether their charging decisions, plea offers, and other decisions may be affected by bias and to determine what steps they can take to align their practices with their values. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1379 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

As we saw from the previous section, there is little realization that prosecutors can cause racial disparities or exacerbate the disparities they inherit. I argue that, even most non-biased prosecutors can contribute to racial disparities. Prosecutors follow numerous laws, policies, and practices, many dating back decades. Some of these may contribute to disparities. The infamous crack versus powder cocaine sentencing law disparity is a powerful example. Risk assessment tools, the proliferation of which we have seen in recent years, are another example of how policies may trigger unintended racial disparity. When these tools are based on prior arrests, some of which may be the result of biased arrest practices, prosecutors can introduce disparity without even being aware of it. Understanding how disparity can metastasize in the CJS helps prosecutors challenge those practices and implement appropriate reforms. … First, prosecutors can influence police arrest practices by simply refusing to file certain cases brought to their attention. Prosecutorial offices that file nearly all cases brought to them do not help improve police performance and may, in fact, give the green light to continuing business as usual, no matter how biased. If prosecutors file more than 90 percent of cases brought to them by the police, they automatically approve arrest and evidence gathering practices, good or bad. This means prosecutors are not doing their job as guardians of justice and impartiality. I think this is the type of balance of powers prosecutors should worry about, rather than worrying about whether they are stepping on the legislative branch’s toes by introducing new policies. And, to clarify what was discussed above, the executive branch does in fact issue more policies than legislators, and it is up to prosecutors to decide what to prosecute. We simply cannot prosecute every case, so case prioritization should be the norm rather than the exception. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 607 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Racial equity in criminal justice requires institutional redesign, not just attitude change; Racial disparities in policing arise from systemic forces, not individual racism; Institutional practices can produce racial disparities without any racist intent — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 398 (+9 more)

Broader Connections

• Institutional practices can produce racial disparities without any racist intent #corroborates (0.96) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 398
• Prosecution offices with egalitarian values can still produce racially disparate outcomes #exemplifies (0.95) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1379
• Even unbiased prosecutors perpetuate racial disparity through longstanding policies and practices #exemplifies (0.94) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 607
• Even unbiased prosecutors can perpetuate racial disparity through inherited policies #exemplifies (0.94) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 607
• Institutional routines produce starkly unequal outcomes across racial groups #corroborates (0.92) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1832