To what extent is the U.S. Criminal Justice System discriminatory towards the poor?
Introduction
The United States Criminal Justice System is one of the many systems across the globe designed to enforce the
law, ensure public safety, and deliver justice. It is comprised of private agencies, government bureaus and
overarching policies that work in unison to maintain order in the community1. The cases within the system begin
with the law enforcement officials, who investigate the crime and gather the relevant evidence to identify and
use against the alleged perpetrator, followed by the court system, which then weighs the evidence in order to
determine if the defendant is guilty. If conviction follows, the correction system will impose a suitable
punishment, most predominately incarceration, to correct the defendant’s behaviour2.
However, in recent years, incarceration in
America has increased significantly, with almost
2 million people being held in various institutes
within the System in 2022. The fact that
America is not just one criminal justice system,
but compromised of thousands of federal, state,
local and tribal systems, poses an increasingly
high risk of overcriminalisation3.
As shown in Figure 1 of the proportions of the
population in prison in America, the majority of
people held in local jails are not convicted
members3, with figures stating that 67% of
those are not yet convicted. Indeed, in a 2010
study, 2/3rds of the prison population were
disproportionately low-income citizens, unable
to pay for the exceedingly high bail, and so
forced to remain in prison3. This problem
continues to rise in 2022, causing most of
America’s vast population to be held within
prisons, even when not fully convicted, which
Figure 1: Pie chart showing number of people incarcerated in 2022.
leads to more dire post-jail consequences for
these already financially instable citizens who are being unfairly held to their economic crises. This raises
questions about the integrity of the system for holding these individuals due to their economic circumstances
which causes them to be unable to post bail4.
There are number of other problems, such as monetary sanctions, the policies used by the system and the
consequences of being involved in the system, which can lead to the mass incarceration of the poor due to their
lack of resources, resulting in the question: to what extent is the U.S. Criminal Justice System discriminatory
towards the poor? This essay seeks to explore the potential factors listed previously that influence this problem 5.
It is also worth noting that perhaps the poor themselves are to blame, with reports stating that the mass
incarceration of the poor is due to criminal activity resultant from need in order for individuals to alleviate their
poverty crisis6. This essay will ensure to cover the stated factors in detail to reach a justified judgement on how
severely the criminal justice system is discriminating the poor.
Poverty and Crime
Poverty is defined as being in a “state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial re-
sources and essentials for a minimum standard of living,” 7. In 2021 alone, it was estimated that 37.9 million
Americans live in poverty, with the official poverty rate being 11.6% 8. Often, it is found that poverty and
crime is related 6.
Crime can be defined as “behaviour, either by act or omission, defined by statutory or common law as
deserving of punishment or penalty” 9. The act of committing a crime is primarily due to difficult social,
economic, and family conditions. The economic struggle, predominantly, can have negative impacts on the
individual, including an inability to gain higher education, a meaningful employment, stable housing and
having to suffer the prejudices of living in poverty 10. Consequently, these individuals who commit crimes
expect the overall benefits of the crime to outweigh the consequences, meaning that poor individuals seek to
gain more by committing crimes to alleviate their adverse conditions and lead more stable lives 6.
, Many would seek to empathise with these individuals, who are being punished, as it seems, simply for the
matter of trying to improve their living conditions. However, despite the financial reasons for committing
crimes, poor individuals are still rational actors who can understand that the consequences of the crime would
not only benefit them but have negative impacts on society. For example, violent crimes, which have amounted
to nearly 1,203,808 in 2019, are variations of illegal activities, from burglary to assault and can harm the
population. The proportions of poor individuals responsible for these crimes, despite their adverse
circumstances, are therefore aware and guilty of their actions, and so their incarceration is justified as they
were in direct violation of the laws that keep society safe. However, there can be a host of other reasons why
one may commit crimes, including anger and fear 11, leading to the conclusion that poverty is not the main
motivator for crime, and indeed, other factors about an individual’s social background, including gender, age,
social standing, race, and ethnicity may have equal effects on crime rates 12. After all, an educated and
financially stable individual has fewer social and economic problems and so is less likely to commit crimes,
suggesting that the System cares less about whether an individual is poor or not and more on the crimes they
commit, and since poor individuals are more likely to commit crimes, they are more likely to be incarcerated 13.
However, it is also worth noting that one’s residence and that the type of person influences what crime they
may commit. A white individual is more likely to commit white-collar crimes than Latinos or black people,
who are instead more likely to commit street crimes, and the poor are more likely to commit burglary, with
higher burglary rates found in poorer households compared to their wealthier counterparts. Additionally,
incarceration rates are much higher in impoverished areas, where there is more exposure to street crime. The
contact with illegal drugs and youth gangs increases the likelihood of one being involved with the System and
although an unfair circumstance, the individual has, in most cases it seems, committed the crime, and their
later incarceration is warranted, as like all criminals who break the law, there are consequences and the
System’s job is to make sure these punishments are assigned, regardless of one’s economic status 14,15. This
shows that the Criminal Justice System is not largely discriminatory towards the poor, as their reasonings to
commit crime to improve their economic crises contradicts with the system’s duty to keep society safe.
Perhaps, the system can lose this discriminatory accusation if poverty rates were improved, which would
significantly lower crime rates and the need for incarcerating the poor 11.
However, despite the justification for the incarceration of the poor, their mistreatment while in the system can
be seen more obviously as being largely significantly discriminatory. Data has shown that the likelihood of
being arrested and charged with a harsher crime with longer sentences are when one comes from a lower
economic background, with adults in poverty having a three time more chance to be arrested than those who
are not. Additionally, individuals earning less than the federal poverty level are fifteen times more likely to be
charged with felony which carries a longer sentence than those earning above the threshold. This thus shows
that the system is supremely discriminatory towards the poor as despite the nature of the crime committed, a
poorer individual is more likely to receive worse punishment than those with a higher economic status
convicted of the same crime5. Furthermore, the consequential interaction with the Criminal Justice System is
expensive, and those with economics struggles have a harder time of navigating the System than those from
wealthier households16. This leads to the problem of whether the System is instead discriminating the poor by
imposing monetary sanctions and bail prices clearly above the capabilities of poorer defendants 5.
Monetary Sanctions, Bail, and Debt
Monetary sanctions, including fines and fees, have become the most common type of punishment imposed by
the judicial system, and with each state increasing the use and amount of these, the poor suffer large debts as a
result17. Monetary sanctions can be defined as “any monies, including penalties, disgorgement and interest
ordered to be paid as a result of an administrative or judicial action”18. Courts have also charged defendants,
regardless of their conviction’s status, to pay fees for a variety of other services, such as jury fees, late fees, and
some states even charge for a defendant’s time in prison. Additionally, forty-three states require defendants to
pay for their court-appointed lawyer even when not found guilty and every state apart from Washington, D.C.,
require those issued a home monitoring device to pay for their use. The failure to pay these fines, or “‘failure to
comply with a court order’”, can lead to further judicial punishment such as imprisonment, regardless of the fact
that it has been ruled unconstitutional to imprison an individual for an inability to pay. The consequence of such
monetary sanctions and exceedingly large amount of fees is felt primarily by low-income citizens, who do not
have the capability to reasonably pay these
sanctions and fines, which the System does not
seem to be considering when issuing these costs5.
The rise in these sanctions and fees is rooted in the
Criminal Justice System’s rising expenditures, with
Figure 2: Expenditures on different sectors of the Criminal Justice System
