Unequal Before the Law: Immigrant and Racial Minority Perceptions of the Canadian Criminal Justice System

Abstract

This paper examines attitudes towards the criminal justice system among a large, diverse sample of residents from Toronto, Canada. The results indicate that while most residents positively evaluate the performance of the police and criminal courts, black and Chinese Canadians have less favorable views than whites. Compared to whites, racial minority respondents are also much more likely to perceive various forms of discrimination within the justice system. Perceptions of racial bias are particularly widespread among black respondents. Interestingly, these racial differences cannot be explained by immigration patterns. Indeed, regardless of race, attitudes towards the justice system are most positive among recent immigrants. However, attitudes become less favorable with time spent in Canada and are most negative among Canadian-born racial minorities. The paper concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and policy implications of these findings.

Résumé

Cet article porte sur les attitudes face au système de justice pénale parmi un vaste et divers échantillon de résidents de Toronto, au Canada. Les résultats indiquent que si la majorité des résidents évaluent de façon positive la performance de la police et des tribunaux criminels, les Canadiens noirs et chinois ont un avis moins favorable que celui des Blancs. De plus, les répondants membres d’une minorité raciale étaient beaucoup plus portés que les Blancs à percevoir diverses formes de discrimination au sein du système de justice. Les perceptions de préjugé racial sont particulièrement répandues chez les Noirs. Fait intéressant, ces différences raciales ne s’expliquent pas par des modèles d’immigration. En fait, indépendamment de la race, les immigrants nouvellement arrivés démontrent les attitudes les plus positives face au système de justice. Toutefois, les attitudes deviennent moins positives avec le temps et sont les plus négatives chez les membres de minorités raciales nés au Canada. Une discussion des retombées de ces résultats sur la théorie et les politiques vient conclure l’article.

Appendix A

Description of dependent and independent variables used in the OLS regression analysis

Dependent Variables

Police Evaluation Scale

Respondents were asked if the thought the police were doing a good job, an average job or a poor job at performing four specific policing functions: (1) enforcing the law; (2) being approachable and easy to talk to; (3) providing the public with information on how to prevent crime; and (4) kee** your community safe. Each of these variables was coded in the following manner: 0 = poor; 1 = don’t know; 2 = average; 3 = good. Responses to these four items were collapsed into a single police evaluation scale ranging for 0 to 12 (mean = 7.9).

Court Evaluation Scale

Respondents were asked if they thought the criminal courts were doing a good job, an average job or a poor job at performing three specific policing functions: (1) providing justice quickly; (2) hel** the victims of crime; and (3) determining the guilt or innocence of accused persons. Each of these variables was coded in the following manner: 0 = poor; 1 = don’t know; 2 = average; 3 = good. Responses to these three items were collapsed into a single court evaluation scale ranging for 0 to 9 (mean = 3.5).

Police Bias Scale

Respondents were asked six questions about possible police bias. They were asked how the police treated: (1) poor people vs. wealthy people; (2) young people vs. older people; (3) women vs. men; (4) people who speak English vs. people who do not speak English; (5) black people vs. white people; and (6) Chinese people vs. white people. If respondents reported that a particular group was treated the same, they were given a score of 0; if they reported that they “don’t know”, they were assigned a score of 1; if they felt that they were treated “better” or “worse”, they were given a score of 2; and if they felt they were treated “much better” or “much worse”, they were given a score of 3. Finally, a third set of questions tapped the perceived frequency with which such bias occurs. Responses to this item were coded from ‘1’ if they “did not know” to ‘4’, if they felt that discrimination occurs often. The variables measuring magnitude and frequency of differential testament were subsequently multiplied and combined in order to create a single index of police bias ranging from 0 to 69. The higher the score on this index, the greater the level of perceived police bias (mean score = 29.03).

Court Bias Scale

Respondents were also asked six questions about possible bias in judicial sentencing. They were asked how criminal court judges would treat: (1) poor people vs. wealthy people; (2) young people vs. older people; (3) women vs. men; (4) people who speak English vs. people who do not speak English; (5) black people vs. white people; and (6) Chinese people vs. white people. If respondents reported that a particular group was treated the same, they were given a score of 0; if they reported that they “don’t know”, they were assigned a score of 1; if they felt that they were treated “better” or “worse”, they were given a score of 2; and if they felt they were treated “much better” or “much worse”, they were given a score of 3. Responses to these six items were combined to create a single index of perceived court bias ranging from 0 to 18 (mean = 6.2). The higher the score on this scale the higher the perceived bias in criminal courts sentencing.

Independent Variables

Race

Respondents were asked to state what racial group they self identify with. Two dummy variables were used to denote race. Black (1 = black; 0 = other) and Chinese (1 = Chinese; 0 = other). White is the default category left out of the analysis: 33% of the final sample are black; 33% are Chinese, and 33% are white.

Age

Age is an interval variable. Age is measured in years ranging from 18 to 89 years. Mean age = 45.1 years; median age = 44 years; standard deviation = 16 years.

Gender

Gender is dummy coded (1 = male; 0 = female). Less than half of the sample (40%) is male.

Education

Respondents were asked their level of educational attainment. Education is coded: 1 = elementary or less; 2 = some high school; 3 = completed high school; 4 = some post-secondary; 5 = completed college; 6 = bachelor’s degree; 7 = professional or graduate degree. One-fourth of the sample (27%) has a university degree.

Employment

Respondents were asked whether or not they were currently employed. Employment status was dummy coded: (1 = employed full-time; 0 = other). Approximately 51% of the sample is employed full-time.

Unemployed

We also included a dummy variable to denote unemployment (1 = unemployed; 0 = other). Approximately 6% of the sample is unemployed.

Subjective Social Class

Respondents were asked about what social class they felt they belong to. Subjective social class was coded: 0 = lower class; 1 = middle class; 2 = upper-middle class; and 3 = upper-class or wealthy. Two-thirds of the sample (65%) stated that they are middle class.

Number of Times Stopped by the Police

Respondents were asked how many times in the past 2 years they had been stopped and questioned by the police. Recent contact with the police (past 2 years) was coded: 0 = no stops; 1 = one stop; 2 = two stops; and 3 = three or more stops. Approximately one-third of the sample (32%) had been stopped by the police at least once in the past 2 years.

Marijuana Use

We asked the respondents whether they had used marijuana in the past 2 years. Marijuana use is dummy coded: 0 = has not used marijuana in past 2 years; 1 = has used marijuana in past 2 years. 18% of the sample has used marijuana in the past 2 years.

Criminal Record

Respondents were asked if they had ever been arrested by the police at some point in their life. Criminal record was dummy coded: 1 = has a criminal record; 0 = no criminal record. Approximately 3% of the sample has a criminal record.

Length of Time in Canada

Time in Canada is an interval level variable. Respondents were first asked if they were born in Canada or not. Respondents who were born outside of the Canada were then asked what year they moved to Canada. Respondents who had resided in Canada for less than a year were given a score of “0.” On this variable, people born in Canada were given the same score as their age. Length in Canada ranged from 0 to 89 years (mean = 18.2 years).

Vicarious Police Contact

Respondents were asked any family members had been the victim of racial profiling by the police in the past 2 years. This variable was dummy coded: 1 = family/friends have been profiled in the past 2 years; 0 = family and friends have not been profiled. Forty-two percent of the respondents reported that they had a family member or friend who had been profiled by the police in the past 2 years.