Bias in the Treatment of Non-Germans in the British and American Military Government Courts in Occupied Germany, 1945–46

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-666
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Kehoe ◽  
Elizabeth M. Greenhalgh

AbstractNon-Germans—particularly “displaced persons”—were routinely blamed for crime in occupied western Germany. The Allied and German fixation on foreign gangs, violent criminals, and organized crime syndicates is well documented in contemporary reports, observations, and the press. An abundance of such data has long shaped provocative historical narratives of foreign-perpetrated criminality ranging from extensive disorder through to near uncontrolled anarchy. Such accounts complement assertions of a broader and more generalized crime wave. Over the last 30 years, however, a literature has emerged that casts doubt on the actual extent of lawlessness during the occupation of the west and, in turn, on the level non-German participation in crime. It may be that extensive reporting of non-German criminality at the time reflected the preexisting bigotries of Germans and the Allies, which when combined with anxieties about social and societal integrity became focused on the most marginalized groups in postwar society. This process of “group criminalization” is common and can have different motivations. Regardless of its cause, it was clearly evident in postwar western Germany and we hypothesized that it should have created harsher outcomes for non-German versus German criminal defendants when facing the Allied criminal justice system, such as greater rates of conviction and harsher punishments. This hypothesis was tested using newly collected military government court data from 1945 to 1946. Contrary to expectations, we found a more subtle bias against non-Germans than expected, which we argue reveals important characteristics about the US and British military government criminal justice system.

Incarceration ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 263266632097780
Author(s):  
Alexandra Cox ◽  
Dwayne Betts

There are close to seven million people under correctional supervision in the United States, both in prison and in the community. The US criminal justice system is widely regarded as an inherently unmerciful institution by scholars and policymakers but also by people who have spent time in prison and their family members; it is deeply punitive, racist, expansive and damaging in its reach. In this article, we probe the meanings of mercy for the institution of parole.


2021 ◽  
pp. 273-307
Author(s):  
Neena Samota

This chapter explores the broader context and history of race-related issues in the UK, considering why racial disparities persist in diverse societies like the US, Australia, Canada, and the UK, before narrowing the focus to race and ethnicity in the sphere of crime and criminal justice. The concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ have long played major roles in both classroom and broader societal discussions about crime, punishment, and justice, but they have arguably never been more present and visible than today. The chapter looks at the problems with the statistics available on race, ethnicity, and crime, noting the ways in which they may not tell the whole story, before considering the statistics themselves as the chapter discusses the relationships between ethnicity and victimisation and offending. It then moves on to how ethnic minorities experience the various elements of the criminal justice system and the disadvantages they often face, before outlining the attempts that have been made to address these disparities at a state level. Finally, the chapter discusses critical race theory, a key theory in modern criminological examinations of race and its relationship to crime and justice, which grew out of the US but has much broader value and relevance as a framework of analysis.


Author(s):  
Valerie Hardcastle

Part IV begins with Valerie Hardcastle’s chapter on the neuroscience of criminality and our sense of justice. Taking the US courts as her stalking horse, Hardcastle analyzes appellate cases from the past five years in which a brain scan was cited as a consideration in the decision. She focuses on how a defendant’s race might be correlated with whether he is able to get a brain scan, whether the scan is admitted into evidence, how the scan is used in the trial, and whether the scan changes the outcome of the hearing. She then provides a comparative analysis of the cases in which imaging data were successful in altering the sentence of defendants and those in which the data were unsuccessful. She concludes by pointing to larger trends in our criminal justice system indicative of more profound changes in how we as a society understand what counts as a just punishment.


2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Larney ◽  
Curt G. Beckwith ◽  
Nickolas D. Zaller ◽  
Brian T. Montague ◽  
Josiah Rich

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the potential benefits and challenges of applying a strategy of “seek, test, treat and retain” (STTR) to hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the US criminal justice system. Design/methodology/approach – The authors draw on the published literature to illustrate how each component of STTR could be applied to HCV in the US criminal justice system, and describe challenges to the implementation of this strategy. Findings – The burden of morbidity and mortality associated with chronic HCV infection in the USA is increasing and without significantly increased treatment uptake, will likely continue to do so for several decades. The authors argue that the US criminal justice system is an ideal focus for HCV case finding and treatment due to a high prevalence of infection and large volume of individuals in contact with this system. STTR would identify large numbers of HCV infections, leading to opportunities for secondary prevention and primary care. Important challenges to the implementation of STTR include treatment costs and training of prison medical providers. Originality/value – This paper highlights opportunities to address HCV in the US criminal justice system.


Author(s):  
Thaddeus Müller

This chapter on crime, transgression, and justice focuses on interactional meaning-making processes that shape the moral narratives of a range of actors such as perpetrators, police, and judges. These narratives include processes such as labeling, stigmatization, and criminalization. These processes are about (1) degrading, dominating, and excluding, and (2) their narrative counterparts, which focus on resisting the othering claims of moral narratives. This chapter focuses on two fundamental contributions of symbolic interaction to this field: the labeling perspective, and the ethnographic approach studying the social construction of moral meanings in everyday interactions. I will also describe two themes: (1) violence, the perspective of the “badass,” and (2) the criminal-justice system as a labeling machine. This chapter shows that because of its theoretical and methodological tools, symbolic-interactionist studies are well equipped to listen to voices of marginalized groups and show their agency in their fight for justice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Labotka

AbstractThis article combines ethnographic and linguistic analysis to illuminate a critical aspect of the US criminal justice system—disciplinary hearings in prison. Focusing on one woman's (Cherry's) hearing, I consider the remaking of power through bureaucratic procedure. The scripted interaction requires the sergeant to read Cherry's ticket out loud in his performance of authority. I explore the intertextual relations motivated by this verbal animation for their ability to construct a unified front of the institution against which Cherry is tried. Cherry, however, manipulates these intertextual relationships, deploying verbal skills gained through her long entanglement with the criminal justice system to mitigate her punishment. The linguistic analysis of Cherry's hearing, positioned in her prison history, reveals the continual remaking of power in prison interactions that are framed by institutional regulations influencing the negotiation of officer authority and possibilities of inmate resistance. (Prisons, intertextuality, resistance, power, legal interactions)*


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document