Ethnic Differences 21 Marks
Using material from Item B and elsewhere, assess sociological explanations of ethnic differences both in offending and in victimisation. (21 marks)
In terms of offending, official statistics tends to over represent ethnic differences in offending and victimisation. However, self-report studies carried out by Graham and Bowling found that black and whites have very similar rates of offending, while Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had much lower rates. In terms of victimisation, black people are significantly over-represented among those identified by victims as offenders in victim surveys.
From the mid-1970s, increased conflict between the police and African Caribbean communities and higher arrests rates for street crime meant that ‘black criminality’ increasingly became a problem. Left realists such as Lea and young see official statistics as reflecting real differences in offending between ethnic groups. Ethnic minorities face higher levels of unemployment, poverty and poor housing which left realists argue results in relative deprivation, marginalisation and subcultures. A response to the Medias emphasis on consumerism promoting a sense of relative deprivation, young unemployed black males are likely to form delinquent subcultures and carry out both utilitarian and non-utilitarian crime to cope with relative deprivation and the frustration created by marginalisation. Therefore, Lea and Young argue that ethnic differences in offending in the official statistics are realist as a result of relative deprivation, subcultures and marginalisation in minority ethnic groups.
In comparison, Gilroy argues that the idea of black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African Caribbean’s and Asians and these groups are no more criminal than any other group. Gilroy argues ethnic minority crime can be seen as a form of political resistance against racist society, for example, Gilroy would argue the London riots occurred as minority ethnic groups adopted
In terms of offending, official statistics tends to over represent ethnic differences in offending and victimisation. However, self-report studies carried out by Graham and Bowling found that black and whites have very similar rates of offending, while Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had much lower rates. In terms of victimisation, black people are significantly over-represented among those identified by victims as offenders in victim surveys.
From the mid-1970s, increased conflict between the police and African Caribbean communities and higher arrests rates for street crime meant that ‘black criminality’ increasingly became a problem. Left realists such as Lea and young see official statistics as reflecting real differences in offending between ethnic groups. Ethnic minorities face higher levels of unemployment, poverty and poor housing which left realists argue results in relative deprivation, marginalisation and subcultures. A response to the Medias emphasis on consumerism promoting a sense of relative deprivation, young unemployed black males are likely to form delinquent subcultures and carry out both utilitarian and non-utilitarian crime to cope with relative deprivation and the frustration created by marginalisation. Therefore, Lea and Young argue that ethnic differences in offending in the official statistics are realist as a result of relative deprivation, subcultures and marginalisation in minority ethnic groups.
In comparison, Gilroy argues that the idea of black criminality is a myth created by racist stereotypes of African Caribbean’s and Asians and these groups are no more criminal than any other group. Gilroy argues ethnic minority crime can be seen as a form of political resistance against racist society, for example, Gilroy would argue the London riots occurred as minority ethnic groups adopted