Roger Hood's Race and Sentencing
| Author | Joe Ukemenam |
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059304000428 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
240
hard
as
she
apparently
does
to
reinforce
one
of
the
stereotypes
with
which
they
have
to
contend -
the
one
about
women
being
all
emotional
responses
and
cavalier
about
the
facts
of
any
situation.
Why
is
it
against
her
nature
as
a
woman
to
make
a
written
report
about
threats
made
against
her?
Does
sheJbelieve
that
such
things
come
naturally
to
all
her
male
colleagues?
I
have
no
difficulty
in
believing
her
account
of
those
male
colleagues’
reaction
to
the
incident,
but
in
my
experience
female
colleagues
can
be
just
as
insensitive.
The
author
complains
that
colleagues
and
hostel
residents
fail
to
celebrate
the
particular
insights
which
as
a
woman
she
brings
to
her
job.
If
this
self-obsessed
whine
is
typical
of
her
approach,
there
is
nothing
surprising
about
their
response.
She
would
seem
to
be
a
feminist
but
she
does
the
cause
no
good
at
all.
Ann
Simpson
Probation
Officer,
Inner
London
Roger
Hood’s
Race
and
Sentencing
Roger
Hood’s
study
of
Race
and
Sentencing
(Clarendon
Press,
1992)
reviewed
by
Jil
Cove
in
July’s
Journal,
is
probably
the
largest
of
its
kind
in
the
world,
with
a
sampling
frame
of
2,884
male
and
433
female
defendants.
Yet
despite
its
scale
and
the
eminence
of
the
researcher,
the
study
suffers
the
gross
omission
of
an
informed
racial
dimension.
Cove
was
wrong
when
she
wrote
that
’Roger
Hood
and
his
team
set
out
to
demonstrate
that
racism
exists
at
the
point
of
sentencing’.
Though
Hood
acknowledged
that
there
was
discrimination
in
sentencing
behaviour,
he
refused
to
say
that
this
discrimination
was
due
to
the
race
of
the
defendants.
In
fact,
he
argues
that
this
is
impossible
to
establish.
He
claims
that
a
verdict
of
racism
cannot
be
reached,
not
because
the
evidence
does
not
support
such
a
verdict
but
because
’scientifically
you
cannot
measure
it’.
Judges
I
have
spoken
to
since
the
research
was
published
take
comfort
that
a
verdict
of
racism
’was
not
reached’.
One
is
reminded
of
the
problems
of
proving
racism
at
industrial
tribunals.
The
situation
there
has
deteriorated
to
a
point
where
only
overtly,
repeatedly
demonstrated
acts
of
racism
can
get
and
secure
conviction.
To
a
large
extent
it
is
because
those
who
decide
and
make
’recognised’
and
’authoritative’
statements
and
decisions
on
race
issues
have
never
experienced
racism
and
are
least
likely
to
experience
it.
Once
again
we
see
issues
of
race
being
denied
the
proper
recognition
and
seriousness
they
deserve.
Hood
has
missed
a
unique
opportunity
of
summing
up what
other
smaller
studies
were
insinuating.
It
is
significant
that
he
enlisted
the
services
of
a
statistician
to
collaborate
on
his
study
but
apparently
did
not
consider
it
necessary
to
consult
a
well-informed
race
adviser.
If
he
had
done
so
he
could
have
made
a
far
more
penetrating
contribution.
For
example,
Hood’s
study
tries
to
argue
that
the
’smaller
proportion
of
Asians
sentenced
to
custody
was
largely
due
to
the
fact
that
they
were
less
involved
in
criminal
activity
than
either
whites
or
blacks’.
Yet
we
know
that
the
black
section
of
the
population
is
policed
more
than
others
and
is
consequently
proceeded
against
more
often.
To
conclude
that
any
section
of
the
population
is
involved
in
less
criminal
activity
without
a
sophisticated
measurement
process
to
test
this
assertion
seems
dangerous,
stereotypical
and
naive.
Hood
rightly
goes
on
to
suggest
further
investigations
’which
would
To continue reading
Request your trial