The Unequally “Equitable” Criminal Justice System
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system have existed since its institutions were founded, and continue to affect racial minorities even today. Even in the field of criminal law, racial biases largely impact prosecutors’ decision making in terms of charging an individual, and what they will charge them with. Racial injustices at all levels of the criminal justice system need to be brought forth to the light and addressed so that the system can work on solving the issue. Through extensive research, I have found two artifacts that focus on racial disparities. One is a chapter from a book called Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice by Joan McCord, a sociologist who looks at racial injustices in the juvenile criminal justice system through the use of logos, a factually informative tone, and active voice. The other is an interview that was on national television with Professor Angela J. Davis, an adamant civil rights activist and lawyer who uses pathos, a didactic tone, and passive voice to bring across her points. While both artifacts are informative about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, the way that they rhetorically present this information is different as Davis’ interview is much more emotionally vulnerable than the chapter in McCord’s book due to their differing professional backgrounds.
In terms of the approach that the authors take in conveying the information on the racial injustices of the criminal justice system, Joan McCord uses logos, or a logistical approach, through the presentation of statistics based on multiple studies done by expert researchers. For example, McCord notes that research has shown that the percentage of blacks in the criminal justice system is more than double the amount they consist of in the entire population: “Although black youth represented approximately 15 percent of the U.S. population ages 10-17 in 1997, they represented 26 percent of all juvenile arrests, 30 percent of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 45 percent of pre-adjudication decisions, 46 percent of cases judicially waived to adult criminal court, and 40 percent of juveniles in public long-term institutions” (McCord 231). The use of statistics in this artifact adds strength to McCord’s argument that racial minorities are in fact discriminated against since they are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. McCord’s contentions are factually backed, and those facts are, in turn, supported by numbers that have been proven to be true by other expert researchers in the field, which enhances the validity of her argument. Further, since McCord’s novel is geared towards an academically based audience who are likely researchers or lawyers wanting to learn more about the topic, it is highly appropriate that she employs logistics, or logos, throughout the chapter. Since McCord is a sociologist, it is no surprise that this chapter simply presents the facts and has no personal emotional take on the issue of racial disparities. Successful sociologists are able to put their own emotional biases aside and evaluate the situation from a logistical stance, which is what McCord does here, and what strongly differentiates this artifact from the likes of Davis’ interview.
In contrast, Angela J. Davis takes more of an emotional approach, or the use of pathos, throughout her interview with the Washington Journal about racial issues across the criminal justice system. Although Davis does use factual information to support her arguments, the way that she conveys such information takes a much more pathological angle than the purely logistical style of McCord. When discussing how blacks are charged and sentenced much more harshly than whites, and police officers who murdered black men and boys were treated with leniency, Davis highlighted that “police officers [who commit crimes are often not] convicted by a jury, and [that] Tamir Rice and Eric Garner’s killers were never charged.” By mentioning individual, real-life stories of blacks affected by racial disparities, such as Tamir Rice, a twelve-year-old boy who was murdered by police officers when he was playing with a toy gun, Davis is able to incite sympathy and anger in those listening to her interview as she exemplifies that she feels this way as well. To hear that police officers would go to the extent of killing a child purely due to racial stereotypes that perceive black children as violent, and prosecutors that would not convict white cops because of their privilege is infuriating to a vast majority of the population. In addition, Davis’ audience in comparison to Joan McCord’s is filled with a wide variety of people, some educated on the subject and others not, so taking more of an emotional appeal to entice the audience is much more beneficial than being solely logistical. Davis uses a unique take of making a point of her own emotional vulnerability to the subject of racial disparities in the criminal justice system in order to advocate for changes that need to be made to the system and bring an empathetic understanding to her audience on the issue, which is due to the fact that she is a civil rights activist. The use of emotional vulnerability makes this interview largely different from McCord’s text.
Further, although McCord and Davis are both addressing the topic of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, the tones that they employ throughout are quite different. Since McCord’s purpose is to present information to an audience of researchers or lawyers with some prior knowledge in an academically based book, her tone is informative but in a much more factual sense. McCord is showcasing the results of research conducted by other scholars in the field of criminal justice, such as Bridges and Steen, which details how prosecutors and law enforcement have “differential perceptions of youth and their crimes” which in their minds “‘legitimate’ racial disparities associated with official assessments of a youth’s dangerousness and risk of future criminal behavior” (McCord 251). In sentences such as this, McCord is not attributing any emotion to police actions or the impacts that such action has on youth, she is simply stating the research that was found and then goes on to analyze the implications that such racial disparities have in statistics. McCord’s tone is informative in terms of the facts, it does not carry any feeling behind it, which is directly connected to her background as a sociologist who separates feeling from conveying information.
On the other hand, the tone that Davis maintains throughout her interview is much more didactic, which is similar to McCord’s in that it provides information on racial disparities, but is starkly different in that its purpose is to teach a lesson that provides a model of what Davis believes to be morally correct. When discussing how prosecutors and law enforcement make decisions in regard to criminal justice issues, Davis describes how it is “unfortunate” that the decisions are likely due to biases that they are not “consciously aware of.” Such diction indicates that she feels that through learning about these unconscious biases, members of the criminal justice system could resolve their problems. Davis further goes on to call the effects of such biases as “devastating,” which highlights how morally troubling she feels that the issue is. The diction that Davis employs demonstrates how emotionally vulnerable she is about the matter, and being so upfront about how she feels enables her to provide moral advice to her viewers, rather than pure information like McCord, making this interview unique. Throughout her interview, Davis draws on the core belief that through informatory and eye-opening reforms to the criminal justice system, racial disparities can be alleviated and potentially solved, which emphasizes a didactic tone and her civil rights activist background.
Additionally, the two artifacts use different styles of voice to make their points on the topic, although they are in regard to the same thing, racial disparities in the criminal justice system. McCord consistently applies the active voice throughout her chapter, while Davis would sometimes use the passive voice when speaking to the man interviewing her. This is largely due to McCord's background as a sociologist and that the text is more formal, while Davis has room in an interview to be emotionally vulnerable and informal to some extent since she is a civil rights activist. For example, when explaining why the risk factors that make racial minorities prone to disparities, McCord says “these youth experience the effects of enduring chronic poverty and stigma” (242). The use of active voice, in this case, provides a clear explanation as to why racial disparities may exist, and is more concise. In a text where the purpose is to be formal and academically intended, active voice is more proper than passive voice. McCord’s use of the active voice is more appropriate for her genre as she is a sociologist. She does not express her own emotional biases in her career nor in this text, which entails the use of clarity, and therefore justifies her use of active voice. Davis also uses an active voice throughout her interview but also makes use of the passive voice. In one phrase, Davis states that “12 year old Tamir Rice’s killing was seen by us,” which is the use of the passive voice. Since the interview is more informal than an academic text, Davis is able to use passive voice, which also allows her to express her emotional vulnerability toward Tamir’s wrongful death. She also employs a passive voice because she wants to bring more attention to the victims of racial disparities in the criminal justice system like Tamir. The passive voice emphasizes the victim of the matter and turns focus away from the killers, which shows how emotionally invested she is in the victim and making other people understand the wrongdoings committed. The use of passive voice in this case is not about the responsibility of the police, but puts the victim into the spotlight, which reflects back on Davis’ background as a civil rights activist. Although the two artifacts use different voices, McCord's book uses predominantly active voice and Davis some passive voice due to their different professional backgrounds, they are still ultimately working towards the same goal: bringing light to racial injustices in the entire criminal justice system.
In conclusion, despite the fact that the two artifacts are of different genres--McCord’s being text-based book and Davis’ being a non-text based televised interview--they both contribute to the same purpose, which is to highlight racial disparities in the criminal justice system and make people more aware of them. It is interesting to uncover, though, that genres that cover the same topic can go about similar yet also entirely different ways of rhetorically bringing them to light, especially when the person is of a particular profession. Although McCord and Davis had some similarities in the way they expressed their views, Davis employed many different rhetorical strategies as she was speaking in an interview and being emotionally vulnerable about her feelings toward racial disparities in the criminal justice system, which can be attributed to her being a civil rights activist. The slightly less formal nature of her interview, audience, and emotional vulnerability allowed her to use tactics such as pathos, a didactic tone, and some use of the passive voice, while McCord’s formally academic purpose made it imperative that she used logos, an informative factual tone, and active voice throughout her book. McCord’s clear formality throughout her text can be tied back to her profession, sociology, and how the field requires its workers to remove any emotion that may impact the way they convey information. It is now evident that both of these artifacts effectively call attention to the issue of racial disparities on all levels of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement and criminal lawyers, namely prosecutors.
Works Cited
Davis, Angela J. “Washington Journal: Angela J. Davis Discusses Race and Criminal Justice Reform.” C-Span, 27 Dec. 2017, www.c-span.org/video/?438867-3%2Fwashington-journal-angela-j-davis-discusses-race-criminal-justice-reform.
McCord, Joan, et al. “Race, Crime, and Juvenile Justice: The Issue of Racial Disparity.” Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. National Academy Press, 2001.
Comments