Race and Drug Law Enforcement in America
Exploring the Reality of Disparate Sentencing and Policing
Raymond Moylan
Sophomore, College of Arts and Sciences
INTRODUCTION
The United States has historically struggled with the regulation of psychoactive substances and the corresponding enforcement of drug use statutes. Originally residing as an unregulated expanse of commonplace drug use before the 1904 Pure Food and Drug Act and 1915 Harrison Act, twentieth century America experienced a wealth of drug legislation. However, statutes determining the illegality of certain drugs and not others were often if not invariably drawn along racial lines. Xenophobic and racist narratives were utilized to vilify minority populations and create negative imagery around drugs commonly used within those ethnic groups. Such was the case with Chinese immigrants and opium, and the African-American community and crack cocaine (Provine, 2011). This troubled history of drug legislation currently manifests in disproportional prison populations regarding similarly oppressed minority groups. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report reveals the current prison population of federally sentenced drug offenders to be comprised of 38.8% African-Americans, 37.2% Latinx persons, but only 21.8% white offenders (2015). Several studies exist in an attempt to analyze and explain the current and apparent trends in disparate drug offense sentencing which will be discussed in the following pages.
In this paper, I will consider how each article configures the relationship between race, race-neutral factors, and the disproportionate representation of minority populations in the criminal justice system as a result of drug-related offenses. Then, I will evaluate the methodological shortcomings of the represented studies to construct a proposed research project which will supplement the existing literature by qualitatively examining the effects of ground-level practices on biased criminal justice work.
CURRENT ATMOSPHERE OF DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AND RACE
The current climate of law enforcement surrounding drug offenses has proven to disproportionately represent minority populations through convictions and sentencing of drug offenders (BJS, 2015). However, the current literature on the racialized nature of drug criminalization remains disputed as to the source of the present trend. Implicit bias through the discretionary nature of law enforcement to increase surveillance of largely minority neighborhoods, differential access to private space for drug usage, existing criminal records as a result of current disproportionate arrest rates, and a preponderance of low-level drug offenses have all been cited as complementary explanations to buttress the claim of inherent bias in drug policing (Beckett, 2012; Beckett, Nyrop, Pfingst, & Bowen 2005; Leiber, Peck, Lugo, & Bishop, 2017; Mitchell & Caudy, 2015; Provine, 2011). Additionally, Miller (2010) purports that these manifestations of an allegedly racialized system are further maintained through the convoluted nature of federalism in the United States, a system which prioritizes national level legislation and limits policymaking for poorly resourced groups. On the other hand, certain scholars contend that race-neutral metrics should be used to explain this trend, that these disproportionate figures are not the product of biased policing. Instead, other factors such as 911 calls for service (CFS) or stereotypes around types of drug-related crime better explicate this tendency (Engel, Smith, & Cullen, 2012; Steen, Engen, & Gainey, 2005). Such dispute has populated the current literature with ample dialogue encompassing the innately precarious arena of drug law enforcement, yet a consensus must be reached concerning the origin of the disproportionate amount of minority
populations sentenced for drug-related offenses before adequate policy-related measures can be taken to rectify present injustices.
Bias as Primary Factor in Racial Disparity
Those in accordance with the hypothesis that race plays the primary role in current disparate arrest rates and sentencing in drug use cases all strive to isolate factors within a framework which presupposes the presence of bias in drug law enforcement. Such instances of bias are noticed particularly in analysis of the influence of drug law enforcement on the African-American community. Current popular and police perceptions of drug users are still influenced by the “crack epidemic” of the 1980’s to associate drug use with “blackness,” which then stereotypes the offender as dangerous, meriting harsher sentencing. (Beckett et al., 2005; Leiber et al., 2017). This is amplified by the inability of underprivileged populations to take active roles in policymaking decisions which would serve to reverse their oppressed state. Miller (2010) proposes that lawmakers with the power to ameliorate social problems experienced by racial minorities are insulated from such issues by a plurality of political venues which act as barriers to poorly resourced groups. This both protects and preserves a racial hierarchy which enacts and benefits from disproportionate sentencing of minority populations. Yet, some scholarship contests these assertions to support an argument that race-neutral factors fuel the disproportionate prison population, therefore negating the alleged issue of racial bias in drug criminalization. Expectedly, this precipitates an intriguing academic interchange between the two differing camps.
Inclusion of Race-neutral Factors as Contributing to Racial Disparity
As previously mentioned, certain race-neutral factors like reported violent crimes in certain minority-populated areas, CFS reports, or stereotypes which focus on the types of crime rather than race of the offender may contribute to the evident disparity in the prison population. (Engel et al., 2012; Steen et al., 2005). For one, Engel et al. (2012) counters Beckett et al.’s (2005) findings concerning racially disparate sentencing localized in the Seattle Police Department, contending that race-neutral factors such as using CFS metrics rather Narcotic Activity Reports (NAR) should be utilized to explicate sentencing trends. Additionally, Engel et al. observes a correlation between drug arrests and reported violent crimes. Through these factors, Engel et al. constructs a retort to the claims that biased policework is the source of the disparate sentencing. Rather, they contend that two components of CFS reports and reported violent crimes attest to a practice of equitable policing in the areas “where both police and residents believe they are needed” (p. 24). As a result, the policy and organizational practices in place are under no need of revision, and any alternative would leave areas inhabited by minority populations under-policed. However, Beckett (2012) rebuts this claim, challenging the “limited” data sources used by Engel et al. and their focus on organizational practices, which Beckett does not view as the primary driver of racial disparity. Instead, Beckett affirms her earlier findings by assigning responsibility for the sentencing disparity to the institutional discretionary practices allowed to SPD officers, and by confirming that African-Americans were disproportionately represented regardless of area. Similarly, Steen et al. (2005) and Leiber (2017) enter a direct dialogue concerning the source of racially disparate sentencing in drug offenses.
Initially, Steen et al. (2005) hypothesizes that the harshness of differential drug-related prison sentences is predicated on the concept of a crime-related stereotypes. Within this theoretical framework, Steen et al. explores the variance in punishment within a race group to isolate variables that determine the harshness of a sentence. They conclude that a sentencing represents a holistic process which equally weighs race-neutral factors along with an offender’s race, thereby minimizing the potential for bias to influence the law enforcement system. However, the assumption that supposed race-neutral factors are not also tainted by the nefarious ways in which racism latently and actively permeates the criminal justice system is greatly contested. Unconscious stereotypes present in the psyches of drug law enforcement system manifest in disproportionate amount of time spent in inner-city neighborhoods, greater likelihood for African-American youth to receive out-of-home punishment placement, and a plethora of low-level drug offenses resulting in jail time (Leiber et al. 2017; Mitchell & Caudy, 2015). Furthermore, Murakawa & Beckett (2010) note the well-established barriers in place to enact positive social change through their discussion of the penology of racial innocence. This framework for assessing the role of race in penal policies and institutions begins with the presumption that the criminal justice system of is innocent of racial power and corresponding abuses. Murakawa & Beckett contend that such a philosophy insulates the criminal justice system from valuable critique, inhibiting integral introspective practices which would allow for recognition of the latent bias affecting the disparate representation of marginalized populations in the criminal justice system as a result of drug-related offenses.
A CALL FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF GROUND-LEVEL ENFORCEMENT
The main methodological shortcoming in the mentioned studies is the tendency for sociologists to study within only select urban centers. For example, much of the available information is concentrated on the findings localized within Seattle and pertaining to the practices of the SPD (Beckett, 2012; Beckett et al., 2005; Engel et al., 2012) Admittedly, due to limited resources, researchers must be prudent and analyze the data that is most readily available to them. It is important to note that Leiber et al.’s study does center on information extrapolated from an undisclosed Northeast state, therefore providing some breadth to the available data
(2017). Additionally, Mitchell & Caudy (2015) consult the National Longitudinal Study of Youth from 1997 to verify their findings, deviating from the tendency to localize within a particular urban center. However, the body of literature stands to benefit from a broadened data set comprised of a plurality of urban centers so as to promote transregional comparisons to verify findings. It is imperative that we initiate these comparisons between different law enforcement practices amongst varying urban centers to understand if the bias manifest in Beckett et al.’s findings is isolated to SPD practices due to Seattle-specific factors, or if there exist identifiable indicators that transcend local police tendencies (2005).
TRANSREGIONAL COMPARISON OF BIAS ACROSS URBAN CENTERS
In an effort to supplement the existing literature and remedy the aforementioned methodological shortcomings, research involving multiple urban centers is necessary. The approaches utilized by Becket et al. (2005) that investigated SPD discretionary practices in drug possession arrests provide an encompassing picture of a drug law enforcement organization’s main body of work and the instances of bias that may appear within their practice. Specifically, the ethnographic study of well-known, open-air drug markets like the Downtown and Capitol Hill areas in Seattle gives light to apparent biased and discretionary drug law enforcement practices. These often manifest in institutional, ground-level, and frontline practices that escape national attention or federal-level policymaking efforts. Rather, due to the discretionary liberties allowed to frontline drug enforcement agents, bias currently appears through the actions of those in primary contacts with drug abuse.
To enhance the current understanding of the innerworkings of bias in the criminal justice system, one has to suspend the conception that a salve may be found through nationalized statutes. Instead, one must study the various iterations of injustice from a ground-up approach,
recognizing that the racial disparity in sentencing amongst drug users can be largely attributed to unconscious biases within law enforcement officers supported by longstanding perceptions of minority populations as drug users. Therefore, to better comprehend the sinister nature of bias within the criminal justice system through the medium of frontline workers, one must enact a largely qualitative study which couples the ethnographic approach of Beckett et al. (2005) with interviews of law enforcement officials that are the primary contact in drug-related offenses. However, a component of quantitative research must also be included to attest to the presence of disparate drug-related sentencing among minority populations in the researched city.
Selection of Adequate Research Sites
Finally, this study must occur in a minimum of three urban centers located within different regions of the United States. Due to the already existing body of work within the SPD, Seattle is a natural choice to represent the Western United States. Other cities like Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Washington D.C., New York City, or Boston could serve as adequate choices for the final two representatives provided they vary enough by region, have a willing law enforcement organization, and a well-known, open-air drug market like Capitol Hill in Seattle. Some barriers to the feasibility of this study include the geographic distance between each urban center; however, the geographic breadth is necessary to provide the rich comparisons desired to better our understanding of biased discretionary practices in drug law enforcement. A possible remedy to this concern could be a collaborative study involving multiple research teams based in a university located at or near the selected urban centers. Each would complete their respective ethnographic, qualitative, and qualitative studies, compile their findings, and communicate with the other two parties to produce a fascinating transregional perspective on disproportionate prison populations.
CONCLUSION
The current United States prison population currently contains a disparate number of minority populations in the arena of drug-related offenses, and while no universal consensus exists as to the principal cause of this trend, a large body of sociologists place racial bias as the primary factor. Support for this claim can be traced from discretionary practices in local-level law enforcement through the structure of American federalism which preserves a racial hierarchy intent on continuing oppression of minority populations (Beckett, 2012; Miller, 2010). The most harmful manifestations of these oppressive trends are present in unconscious biases and stereotypes of minority populations as drug users. These pernicious perceptions populate the psyches of many Americans, but are most harmful when present in law enforcement officials. Therefore, a more complete understanding of the complexity of oppressive attitudes in the criminal justice system must be enacted in order to dismantle the structural racism built into the criminal justice system, specifically the drug law enforcement sphere.
REFERENCES
Beckett, K. (2012). Race, drugs, and law enforcement: Toward equitable policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 641-653. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00844.x
Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., Pfingst, L., & Bowen, M. (2005). Drug use, drug possession arrests, and the question of race: Lessons from Seattle. Social Problems, 52, 419-441.
Engel, R.S., Smith, M.R., & Cullen F.T. (2012). Race, place, and drug enforcement: Reconsidering the impact of citizen complaints and crime rates on drug arrests. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 603-635. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00844.x
Leiber, M.J., Peck, J.H., Lugo, M., & Bishop, D.M. (2017). Understanding the link between race/ethnicity, drug offending, and juvenile court outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 63(14), 1807-1837. doi:10.1177/0011128717714424
Miller, L.L. (2010). The invisible black victim: How American federalism perpetuates racial inequality in criminal justice. Law & Society Review, 44, 805-842. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00423.x
Mitchell, O. & Caudy, M.S. (2015). Race differences in drug offending and drug distribution arrests. Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 91-112. doi: 10.1177/0011128714568427
Murakawa, N. & Beckett, K. (2010). The penology of racial innocence: The erasure of racism in the study and practice of punishment. Law & Society Review, 44(3/4), 695-730. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40926315
Provine, D.M. (2011). Race and inequality in the war on drugs. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 41-60.
Steen, S., Engen, R.L., & Gainey, R.R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing, and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(2), 435-468. doi: 10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00013.x
Taxy, S., Samuels, J., & Adams, W. (2015). Drug offenders in federal prison: Estimates of characteristics based on linked data. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, October 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf
The United States has historically struggled with the regulation of psychoactive substances and the corresponding enforcement of drug use statutes. Originally residing as an unregulated expanse of commonplace drug use before the 1904 Pure Food and Drug Act and 1915 Harrison Act, twentieth century America experienced a wealth of drug legislation. However, statutes determining the illegality of certain drugs and not others were often if not invariably drawn along racial lines. Xenophobic and racist narratives were utilized to vilify minority populations and create negative imagery around drugs commonly used within those ethnic groups. Such was the case with Chinese immigrants and opium, and the African-American community and crack cocaine (Provine, 2011). This troubled history of drug legislation currently manifests in disproportional prison populations regarding similarly oppressed minority groups. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report reveals the current prison population of federally sentenced drug offenders to be comprised of 38.8% African-Americans, 37.2% Latinx persons, but only 21.8% white offenders (2015). Several studies exist in an attempt to analyze and explain the current and apparent trends in disparate drug offense sentencing which will be discussed in the following pages.
In this paper, I will consider how each article configures the relationship between race, race-neutral factors, and the disproportionate representation of minority populations in the criminal justice system as a result of drug-related offenses. Then, I will evaluate the methodological shortcomings of the represented studies to construct a proposed research project which will supplement the existing literature by qualitatively examining the effects of ground-level practices on biased criminal justice work.
CURRENT ATMOSPHERE OF DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AND RACE
The current climate of law enforcement surrounding drug offenses has proven to disproportionately represent minority populations through convictions and sentencing of drug offenders (BJS, 2015). However, the current literature on the racialized nature of drug criminalization remains disputed as to the source of the present trend. Implicit bias through the discretionary nature of law enforcement to increase surveillance of largely minority neighborhoods, differential access to private space for drug usage, existing criminal records as a result of current disproportionate arrest rates, and a preponderance of low-level drug offenses have all been cited as complementary explanations to buttress the claim of inherent bias in drug policing (Beckett, 2012; Beckett, Nyrop, Pfingst, & Bowen 2005; Leiber, Peck, Lugo, & Bishop, 2017; Mitchell & Caudy, 2015; Provine, 2011). Additionally, Miller (2010) purports that these manifestations of an allegedly racialized system are further maintained through the convoluted nature of federalism in the United States, a system which prioritizes national level legislation and limits policymaking for poorly resourced groups. On the other hand, certain scholars contend that race-neutral metrics should be used to explain this trend, that these disproportionate figures are not the product of biased policing. Instead, other factors such as 911 calls for service (CFS) or stereotypes around types of drug-related crime better explicate this tendency (Engel, Smith, & Cullen, 2012; Steen, Engen, & Gainey, 2005). Such dispute has populated the current literature with ample dialogue encompassing the innately precarious arena of drug law enforcement, yet a consensus must be reached concerning the origin of the disproportionate amount of minority
populations sentenced for drug-related offenses before adequate policy-related measures can be taken to rectify present injustices.
Bias as Primary Factor in Racial Disparity
Those in accordance with the hypothesis that race plays the primary role in current disparate arrest rates and sentencing in drug use cases all strive to isolate factors within a framework which presupposes the presence of bias in drug law enforcement. Such instances of bias are noticed particularly in analysis of the influence of drug law enforcement on the African-American community. Current popular and police perceptions of drug users are still influenced by the “crack epidemic” of the 1980’s to associate drug use with “blackness,” which then stereotypes the offender as dangerous, meriting harsher sentencing. (Beckett et al., 2005; Leiber et al., 2017). This is amplified by the inability of underprivileged populations to take active roles in policymaking decisions which would serve to reverse their oppressed state. Miller (2010) proposes that lawmakers with the power to ameliorate social problems experienced by racial minorities are insulated from such issues by a plurality of political venues which act as barriers to poorly resourced groups. This both protects and preserves a racial hierarchy which enacts and benefits from disproportionate sentencing of minority populations. Yet, some scholarship contests these assertions to support an argument that race-neutral factors fuel the disproportionate prison population, therefore negating the alleged issue of racial bias in drug criminalization. Expectedly, this precipitates an intriguing academic interchange between the two differing camps.
Inclusion of Race-neutral Factors as Contributing to Racial Disparity
As previously mentioned, certain race-neutral factors like reported violent crimes in certain minority-populated areas, CFS reports, or stereotypes which focus on the types of crime rather than race of the offender may contribute to the evident disparity in the prison population. (Engel et al., 2012; Steen et al., 2005). For one, Engel et al. (2012) counters Beckett et al.’s (2005) findings concerning racially disparate sentencing localized in the Seattle Police Department, contending that race-neutral factors such as using CFS metrics rather Narcotic Activity Reports (NAR) should be utilized to explicate sentencing trends. Additionally, Engel et al. observes a correlation between drug arrests and reported violent crimes. Through these factors, Engel et al. constructs a retort to the claims that biased policework is the source of the disparate sentencing. Rather, they contend that two components of CFS reports and reported violent crimes attest to a practice of equitable policing in the areas “where both police and residents believe they are needed” (p. 24). As a result, the policy and organizational practices in place are under no need of revision, and any alternative would leave areas inhabited by minority populations under-policed. However, Beckett (2012) rebuts this claim, challenging the “limited” data sources used by Engel et al. and their focus on organizational practices, which Beckett does not view as the primary driver of racial disparity. Instead, Beckett affirms her earlier findings by assigning responsibility for the sentencing disparity to the institutional discretionary practices allowed to SPD officers, and by confirming that African-Americans were disproportionately represented regardless of area. Similarly, Steen et al. (2005) and Leiber (2017) enter a direct dialogue concerning the source of racially disparate sentencing in drug offenses.
Initially, Steen et al. (2005) hypothesizes that the harshness of differential drug-related prison sentences is predicated on the concept of a crime-related stereotypes. Within this theoretical framework, Steen et al. explores the variance in punishment within a race group to isolate variables that determine the harshness of a sentence. They conclude that a sentencing represents a holistic process which equally weighs race-neutral factors along with an offender’s race, thereby minimizing the potential for bias to influence the law enforcement system. However, the assumption that supposed race-neutral factors are not also tainted by the nefarious ways in which racism latently and actively permeates the criminal justice system is greatly contested. Unconscious stereotypes present in the psyches of drug law enforcement system manifest in disproportionate amount of time spent in inner-city neighborhoods, greater likelihood for African-American youth to receive out-of-home punishment placement, and a plethora of low-level drug offenses resulting in jail time (Leiber et al. 2017; Mitchell & Caudy, 2015). Furthermore, Murakawa & Beckett (2010) note the well-established barriers in place to enact positive social change through their discussion of the penology of racial innocence. This framework for assessing the role of race in penal policies and institutions begins with the presumption that the criminal justice system of is innocent of racial power and corresponding abuses. Murakawa & Beckett contend that such a philosophy insulates the criminal justice system from valuable critique, inhibiting integral introspective practices which would allow for recognition of the latent bias affecting the disparate representation of marginalized populations in the criminal justice system as a result of drug-related offenses.
A CALL FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF GROUND-LEVEL ENFORCEMENT
The main methodological shortcoming in the mentioned studies is the tendency for sociologists to study within only select urban centers. For example, much of the available information is concentrated on the findings localized within Seattle and pertaining to the practices of the SPD (Beckett, 2012; Beckett et al., 2005; Engel et al., 2012) Admittedly, due to limited resources, researchers must be prudent and analyze the data that is most readily available to them. It is important to note that Leiber et al.’s study does center on information extrapolated from an undisclosed Northeast state, therefore providing some breadth to the available data
(2017). Additionally, Mitchell & Caudy (2015) consult the National Longitudinal Study of Youth from 1997 to verify their findings, deviating from the tendency to localize within a particular urban center. However, the body of literature stands to benefit from a broadened data set comprised of a plurality of urban centers so as to promote transregional comparisons to verify findings. It is imperative that we initiate these comparisons between different law enforcement practices amongst varying urban centers to understand if the bias manifest in Beckett et al.’s findings is isolated to SPD practices due to Seattle-specific factors, or if there exist identifiable indicators that transcend local police tendencies (2005).
TRANSREGIONAL COMPARISON OF BIAS ACROSS URBAN CENTERS
In an effort to supplement the existing literature and remedy the aforementioned methodological shortcomings, research involving multiple urban centers is necessary. The approaches utilized by Becket et al. (2005) that investigated SPD discretionary practices in drug possession arrests provide an encompassing picture of a drug law enforcement organization’s main body of work and the instances of bias that may appear within their practice. Specifically, the ethnographic study of well-known, open-air drug markets like the Downtown and Capitol Hill areas in Seattle gives light to apparent biased and discretionary drug law enforcement practices. These often manifest in institutional, ground-level, and frontline practices that escape national attention or federal-level policymaking efforts. Rather, due to the discretionary liberties allowed to frontline drug enforcement agents, bias currently appears through the actions of those in primary contacts with drug abuse.
To enhance the current understanding of the innerworkings of bias in the criminal justice system, one has to suspend the conception that a salve may be found through nationalized statutes. Instead, one must study the various iterations of injustice from a ground-up approach,
recognizing that the racial disparity in sentencing amongst drug users can be largely attributed to unconscious biases within law enforcement officers supported by longstanding perceptions of minority populations as drug users. Therefore, to better comprehend the sinister nature of bias within the criminal justice system through the medium of frontline workers, one must enact a largely qualitative study which couples the ethnographic approach of Beckett et al. (2005) with interviews of law enforcement officials that are the primary contact in drug-related offenses. However, a component of quantitative research must also be included to attest to the presence of disparate drug-related sentencing among minority populations in the researched city.
Selection of Adequate Research Sites
Finally, this study must occur in a minimum of three urban centers located within different regions of the United States. Due to the already existing body of work within the SPD, Seattle is a natural choice to represent the Western United States. Other cities like Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Washington D.C., New York City, or Boston could serve as adequate choices for the final two representatives provided they vary enough by region, have a willing law enforcement organization, and a well-known, open-air drug market like Capitol Hill in Seattle. Some barriers to the feasibility of this study include the geographic distance between each urban center; however, the geographic breadth is necessary to provide the rich comparisons desired to better our understanding of biased discretionary practices in drug law enforcement. A possible remedy to this concern could be a collaborative study involving multiple research teams based in a university located at or near the selected urban centers. Each would complete their respective ethnographic, qualitative, and qualitative studies, compile their findings, and communicate with the other two parties to produce a fascinating transregional perspective on disproportionate prison populations.
CONCLUSION
The current United States prison population currently contains a disparate number of minority populations in the arena of drug-related offenses, and while no universal consensus exists as to the principal cause of this trend, a large body of sociologists place racial bias as the primary factor. Support for this claim can be traced from discretionary practices in local-level law enforcement through the structure of American federalism which preserves a racial hierarchy intent on continuing oppression of minority populations (Beckett, 2012; Miller, 2010). The most harmful manifestations of these oppressive trends are present in unconscious biases and stereotypes of minority populations as drug users. These pernicious perceptions populate the psyches of many Americans, but are most harmful when present in law enforcement officials. Therefore, a more complete understanding of the complexity of oppressive attitudes in the criminal justice system must be enacted in order to dismantle the structural racism built into the criminal justice system, specifically the drug law enforcement sphere.
REFERENCES
Beckett, K. (2012). Race, drugs, and law enforcement: Toward equitable policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 641-653. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00844.x
Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., Pfingst, L., & Bowen, M. (2005). Drug use, drug possession arrests, and the question of race: Lessons from Seattle. Social Problems, 52, 419-441.
Engel, R.S., Smith, M.R., & Cullen F.T. (2012). Race, place, and drug enforcement: Reconsidering the impact of citizen complaints and crime rates on drug arrests. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 603-635. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00844.x
Leiber, M.J., Peck, J.H., Lugo, M., & Bishop, D.M. (2017). Understanding the link between race/ethnicity, drug offending, and juvenile court outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 63(14), 1807-1837. doi:10.1177/0011128717714424
Miller, L.L. (2010). The invisible black victim: How American federalism perpetuates racial inequality in criminal justice. Law & Society Review, 44, 805-842. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00423.x
Mitchell, O. & Caudy, M.S. (2015). Race differences in drug offending and drug distribution arrests. Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 91-112. doi: 10.1177/0011128714568427
Murakawa, N. & Beckett, K. (2010). The penology of racial innocence: The erasure of racism in the study and practice of punishment. Law & Society Review, 44(3/4), 695-730. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40926315
Provine, D.M. (2011). Race and inequality in the war on drugs. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 41-60.
Steen, S., Engen, R.L., & Gainey, R.R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing, and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(2), 435-468. doi: 10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00013.x
Taxy, S., Samuels, J., & Adams, W. (2015). Drug offenders in federal prison: Estimates of characteristics based on linked data. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, October 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf