The Conflict Among African American Penal Interests: Rethinking Racial Equity in Criminal Procedure
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 171, No. 1, 2023
2023
- 903Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
This Article argues that neither the criminal justice reform platform nor the penal abolition platform shows the ambition necessary to advance each of the primary African American interests in penal administration. It contends, first, that abolitionists have rightly called for a more robust conceptualization of racial equity in criminal procedure. Racial equity in criminal procedure should be considered in terms of both process at the level of the individual, and the number of criminal procedures at the level of the racial group—in terms of both the quality and “quantity” of stops, arrests, convictions, and the criminal sentencings that result in jail or prison admission. To this end, the Article proposes that the principle of racially unbiased criminal procedure be coupled with the (seemingly quixotic) pursuit of racial proportionality in criminal procedure. But African Americans have at least two other primary interests in penal administration: a security interest (in relation to private violence) and a democratic interest (in regard to the group’s influence over penal institutions). To pursue racial proportionality in criminal procedure while also advancing the African American security and the African American democratic interest—that is, to overcome the prospect of a zero-sum relationship among these interests—criminal scholars must embrace the reform platform while adding welfarist and employment policy solutions as a supplementary normative dimension.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know