Social Stratification In Australia's Criminal Justice System
“Their way is not our way!”
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND INDIGENOUS OVER-REPRESENTATION IN AUSTRALIA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND - The Lucky Country?
Hidden from the eyes of the world, two thirds of Aboriginal people in remote communities in Australia live in circumstances comparable to those 700 years ago in Europe. Health and mortality statistics in remote Aboriginal communities are some of the worst in the world. Despite decades of government attempts to close this health gap faced by Indigenous Australians, little has improved. With Aboriginal life expectancy now the lowest of any Indigenous group in the world. (Saban & Curtis, n.d.)
For 60.000 years, Australia has been home to over …show more content…
400 Aboriginal nations. Over two centuries of conflict, oppression and assimilation have left them fighting for their cultural survival. Nearly half of their languages have been lost and many are critically endangered. Across the country, the clash between worlds continues. “As the oldest culture in the world is besieged by its youngest.” (Saban & Curtis, n.d.)
Since the European occupation until now, government policy relating to Aboriginal people has been designed and implemented by Non-Aboriginal people. The common justification for most policies regarding the Indigenous population was that it was for their good. However, it is now clear that none of the policies have made the condition of Aboriginal people any better than it was prior to the illegal arrival of the British. In April 2009, the Australian government signed the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. However, governments since then breached most of the articles in the declaration and Aboriginal voices remain silenced by legislation that circumvents the racial discrimination act. Hence, Australia’s violation of Human Rights of its Indigenous people is legitimized by its legal system. In fact, Australia remains the only Western democracy without a bill of rights. It’s constitution does not have any provisions that protect the Human Rights of all Australians. What is more is that the constitution has never recognized the rights of the Indigenous people as it was written at a time when Aborigines were considered a dying and inferior race. (Australian Human Rights Commission, 1997)
By now it should be obvious that what is at play is racial discrimination towards Australia’s Aboriginal population. A particular area worthy looking at in which this is not only highly evident but also traceable is the criminal justice system, and more specifically incarceration rates of Indigenous people. The racial composition of Australia’s prison population is in fact very different from the population at large. Aboriginal people represent only 3% of the total population, yet more than 28% of Australia’s prison population are Aboriginal.” (“Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits," 2014) The causes of this trend are complicated and multi-causal. Part of the blame is the criminal justice system itself, the ways police officers enforce laws and in the way laws are written and prosecuted. However, in many cases it is not overt racism by individual actors. To get to the roots of this overrepresentation I will assume, based on previous literature regarding this issue, that what is at stake here is a combination of indirect discrimination1 and institutional bias2. (Cunneen, 2006) The interplay of those is what seemingly leads to the legal overrepresentation. However, this raises the question of how this racism and biased decision making comes about.
In an attempt to provide a possible explanatory model, my research question is as follows: How can we explain the institutional bias embodied through legal overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Australian criminal justice system? I seek to give a solution by making use of concepts in classical sociological theory. The two tentative answers seek to complement each other with the first one employing Weberian concepts and the second one arguing in Durkheimian terms.
1. The Australian society is a closed system of stratification - not allowing for social mobility on part of the Indigenous population. Consequently, they are trapped in an ongoing cycle of disadvantage.
2. The fact that Australian Society is characterised by different types of solidarities leads to the national government not adequately representing the entire Australian population - to an extent where the marginalized group is being indirectly discriminated against and over-represented in national crime statistics.
WEBERIAN ANALYSIS
To begin with it is crucial to illustrate Weber’s approach to social stratification, which for the case at hand should rather be understood in terms of racial stratification.
From there I will argue that Australian society on part of the Indigenous community is a closed system of stratification not allowing for social mobility which also prevents the Aboriginal community from forming parties, something which is crucial if you are striving for racial equality. Social stratification is a term used to describe social inequalities. It refers to a person’s position in a stratified society. Social inequalities create a hierarchy of privileges in areas such as property, prestige and power and may be evident between the groups recognized as the classes, the races, the genders or nationalities. Social inequality exists when people have unequal access to property, wealth, power and prestige and in the case at hand exists between the dominant and the minority group. It relates to an unequal distribution of resources within and between societies, that is between the Western or White Australian society and Aboriginal society. Sometimes this inequality is intentionally created whilst at other times it is a consequence of social processes and relationships. Stratification is often defined in terms of socio-economic status, which can be determined in many ways. (e.g. income, wealth, education) These measures reflect the characteristics of wealth, prestige and power that a person holds and the three combined can indicate a person’s social status. (Hughes, Martin, & Sharrock, 199) In order to link racial stratification to social mobility it is necessary to look at the system of stratification which exists in Australia. To do so I will only consider the system which prevails between ‘White’ (non-aboriginal Australians) and ‘Black’ (Indigenous Australians), meaning I will concentrate on racial relations and the strata they bring forth. Social systems fluctuate regarding
their extent of social mobility, that is vertical mobility may change over time or with respect to different groups. I argue that for the Indigenous population, the Australian society represents a closed system of stratification, meaning that an Aborigine has practically no opportunity to move up the ladder of social strata and raise his position in society for the better. An individual’s stance in the stratification system has significant consequences for other aspects of their lives. In Weberian terms, the Indigenous Australian community has no or very little access to resources such as wealth, property, power and prestige. Weber coined the term ‘life chances’ to describe the prospects one has regarding advancement in quality of life. The concept is a probabilistic one as it illustrates how likely it is for people in a specific situations where their lives will lead. (Hughes, Martin, & Sharrock, 1995) In Australia the common factor ‘being Aboriginal’ puts all people of Aboriginal descent into a comparable situation which suggests that their actions lead to similar results. Results which are deplorable and indicate that most of the Indigenous Australians are trapped in an ongoing cycle of disadvantage. Evidence for this can be found in government and legal statistics. See ("Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits," 2014)
The fact that this cycle of disadvantage is impenetrable for the Indigenous Australians might be explained by the Black population’s inability to form a party and thus to counteract the government’s breaching of discriminatory laws. The formation of parties is obviously closely related to power, which brings us back to Weber who argued that power can manifest itself in the political system through parties. He defined power as “the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realising them” (Weber, 1904) Hence, if the Indigenous community was able to form a party and thus influence the law-making process, institutional bias might be circumvented. Until now however, Aboriginal Australians have not been able to do so which is to be traced back to the government’s inability to respect and include the Indigenous community in their decision making. In fact, Aboriginal people are not consulted about policy and planning. In many places Aboriginal people want to be involved and care enough. Including them would not only give voice to their problems but also restore their pride and integrity. When the British arrived in 1788, Australian Aborigines had to fast adapt to Western society which radically changed their lives as their traditional laws and governance were undermined by White Authority (Saban & Curtis, n.d.)
DURKHEIMIAN ANALYSIS
Considering classical Durkheimian theory on solidarity, collective consciousness and the role of the state complements Weberian analysis on social (im)mobility and can take us further in answering the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of institutional bias and indirect racial discrimination against the Indigenous Australian community. Durkheim recognised that different types of society inhabit different types of solidarity. He distinguished between mechanical solidarity corresponding to pre-industrial, small-scale societies and organic solidarity existent in industrial, capitalist societies. (Hughes, Martin, & Sharrock, 1995) The economic organization for traditional societies is production for local use and subsistence needs in the community. Modern society has an industrialist capitalist market system where people do not produce for their own needs but instead for other people’s needs. Thus, requiring them to meet all of their own needs through the purchase of items on the market. Durkheim theorized the difference between modern and traditional society in terms of social solidarity. Traditional society is literally held together with a different social glue than modern society. Thus traditional society represents a different species of society than modern society does. Traditional societies are held together with mechanical solidarity which is defined as a collective consciousness, a group mind that is shared amongst all the members of society which binds them together in a moral community. The center of mechanical solidarity is a sacred collective type which serves as a source of identity for those within the group. Ritual is essential to the maintenance of mechanical solidarity. They allow for the group to visually and physically experience the power of the group over the self. The group behavior is dominated by conformity to a shared belief. Thus ritual behavior is the quintessential mechanically bonded activity. People acting together , reproducing the ritual, reproducing the mythic structure of the group and affirming the existence of the collective type.
Durkheim further divides consciousness up into two categories. Collective consciousness represents the shared belief of the group whereas individual consciousness represents the part of the mind that is devoted to individuality, individual pursuits , individual self-management. In mechanically bonded societies, collective consciousness dominates individual consciousness. A person thinks of him primarily as a part of the group rather than an individual.
In organically bonded modern societies it is the division of labour and specialisation which separates people. As people divide up their labour and specialize, the collective type cannot hold. As people become more individual a new bond emerges, namely organic bonding. The desperate need that people have for the work of others creates a social space for individual freedom. Modernity depends upon a division of labour and a specialisation of function which means that individuals act throughout the day without the group around them and in ways that are individually directed. This causes the individual consciousness to grow and the collective one to shrink. Durkheim argues that the bond which holds together modern societies is organic solidarity which he defines as the desperate reciprocal need that we have for each other’s labor. Consequently, the reality that none of us can survive without the other’s contribution is the bonding force of the modern world.
On the surface it seems as if Australia, as an industrial, capitalist nation with a division of labour, is held together by organic solidarity. However, when considering the Aboriginal community we encounter some contradictions. In fact, when looking at the features of Aboriginal culture, life and interaction one will immediately be able to assert that Indigenous people are bound by mechanical solidarity. Not only do they attach extreme value to religion but also to the community. Similar to pre-industrial societies do their systems consist of tribes and rest upon family networks (Saban & Curtis, n.d.). Hence, I argue that Australia comprises two types of society and consequently also the two types of solidarity which correlate with these societies. On the one hand there is the majority of Australian society, I may call it the White population which is held together by organic solidarity. Whereas on the other hand there is the minority, namely the Indigenous community which is bound by mechanical solidarity.
With the research question in mind, we shall now turn to Durkheim’s conception of the state in order to reveal how institutional bias might be generated. According to Durkheim, the state should be “a representation of the collective consciousness and should embody principles of morality in structures”(Palumbo & Scott, 2003) In the case at hand, the structure is the justice system. However, Durkheim also stated that in large societies (like Australia) the state is so detached from individual concerns meaning that it cannot respect particular situations. And when it does try to control them it does so only by making use of violence. Yet, Durkheim adds that the state then needs to be constrained by other organs. (Palumbo & Scott, 2003) These other organs which serve the purpose of restraining the government’s violent behaviour regarding certain instances seem to not exist in Australia, at least not when we consider that laws have been breached which infringed upon Aboriginal people. Seeing the Australian government repeatedly violating the Rights of its Indigenous people goes against Durkheim’s belief that the modern state safeguards individual freedom, acts moral towards all of its citizen and represents the conscience collective. However, if we argue from the assumption that there is two sets of solidarity, collective and individual consciousness, present in Australian society we might arrive at an explanation. The Australian government is formed by almost only Non-Aboriginal people, people that probably grew up, like most White Australians, detached from Aboriginal communities, people that live in the part of Australian society which is held together by organic solidarity. As previously mentioned, societies bound by organic solidarity are characterised by and value completely different aspects than those bound by mechanical solidarity. It might therefore be stated that values and norms of the White and the Black Australian population are highly divergent. Since the (White) government probably internalized those norms and values peculiar to organic solidarity, it is not able to comprehend those characteristic of mechanical solidarity which holds together the Aboriginal community. This misunderstanding of Aboriginal life and the absence of a party formed by Indigenous people leads to the Australian government not adequately representing its Indigenous population, to an extent where violence seems to be the only way for them to control its Aboriginal population. Analysing the issue in the Durkheimian sense makes the Australian state and in particular its legal system look like they unconsciously, that is without intend, discriminating against Aboriginal Australians. Simply because there is a unwanted misunderstanding. But is this really the case? What about assimilationist policies? Were they not intended? Was it not a conscious decision when Indigenous people were forced off their homelands in order to make room for more mining endeavors?
CONCLUSION
In other Western countries Indigenous people still suffer. But unlike Australia, historical treaties have been signed, the begin to recognise their right to self-determination. Australia is the only developed country repeatedly condemned for the abuse of its Indigenous people. Now and then Australian governments talk of reconciliation. An acceptable idea... that has not built decent homes or got rid of, blindness in Aboriginal children, malnutrition and dickensian diseases. It has not stopped young people suiciding nor has it stopped a land grab that has started two centuries ago. Like Apartheid in South Africa, reconciliation is not possible without justice. Racial inequality in the criminal justice system gets ignored simply because it does not affect most people. This paper attempted to shed light on the issue of institutional bias concerning Australia’s Indigenous people and tried to provide an explanatory model using concepts of Weber and Durkheim in order to illustrate how this institutional bias may come about. The answers are satisfactory but make the Australian state look like it unitentionally discriminates against the Indigenous Australians, which is, when taking into consideration the many governmental actions against Aborigines, definitely not true! In Australia, White is the default race to which all others are comparative. This allows for a system of privileges, namely White privilege that are designed to benefit the majority and controlling group. Historical racist and discriminatory practices resulted in a stratified society which still persists today. Despite of the fact that numerous laws have been enacted, the circumstance remains that there is a hierarchy in socio-economic status that is correlated to race where the White population dominates the top socio-economic status level.
References
Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits. (2014, November). Retrieved from http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/aboriginal-prison-rates
Australian Human Rights Commission. (1997, April). Bringing them Home Report (1997) | Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-report-1997
Cunneen, C. (2006). Racism, Discrimination and the Over-Representation of Indigenous People in the Criminal Justice System: Some Conceptual and Explanatory Issues by Chris Cunneen :: SSRN. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298241
Direct and indirect discrimination - simplified. (2012, January). Retrieved from http://www.victorianhumanrightscommission.com/www/simplified-definitions
Hughes, J. A., Martin, P. J., & Sharrock, W. W. (1995). Understanding classical sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim. London: Sage.
Institutional racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
Palumbo, A., & Scott, A. (2003). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/683120/Weber_Durkheim_and_the_sociology_of_the_modern_state
Saban, S., & Curtis, D. (n.d.). Our Generation. Retrieved from http://www.ourgeneration.org.au/
Weber, M. (1904, May). Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/30609_4.pdf
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND INDIGENOUS OVER-REPRESENTATION IN AUSTRALIA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND - The Lucky Country?
Hidden from the eyes of the world, two thirds of Aboriginal people in remote communities in Australia live in circumstances comparable to those 700 years ago in Europe. Health and mortality statistics in remote Aboriginal communities are some of the worst in the world. Despite decades of government attempts to close this health gap faced by Indigenous Australians, little has improved. With Aboriginal life expectancy now the lowest of any Indigenous group in the world. (Saban & Curtis, n.d.)
For 60.000 years, Australia has been home to over …show more content…
400 Aboriginal nations. Over two centuries of conflict, oppression and assimilation have left them fighting for their cultural survival. Nearly half of their languages have been lost and many are critically endangered. Across the country, the clash between worlds continues. “As the oldest culture in the world is besieged by its youngest.” (Saban & Curtis, n.d.)
Since the European occupation until now, government policy relating to Aboriginal people has been designed and implemented by Non-Aboriginal people. The common justification for most policies regarding the Indigenous population was that it was for their good. However, it is now clear that none of the policies have made the condition of Aboriginal people any better than it was prior to the illegal arrival of the British. In April 2009, the Australian government signed the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. However, governments since then breached most of the articles in the declaration and Aboriginal voices remain silenced by legislation that circumvents the racial discrimination act. Hence, Australia’s violation of Human Rights of its Indigenous people is legitimized by its legal system. In fact, Australia remains the only Western democracy without a bill of rights. It’s constitution does not have any provisions that protect the Human Rights of all Australians. What is more is that the constitution has never recognized the rights of the Indigenous people as it was written at a time when Aborigines were considered a dying and inferior race. (Australian Human Rights Commission, 1997)
By now it should be obvious that what is at play is racial discrimination towards Australia’s Aboriginal population. A particular area worthy looking at in which this is not only highly evident but also traceable is the criminal justice system, and more specifically incarceration rates of Indigenous people. The racial composition of Australia’s prison population is in fact very different from the population at large. Aboriginal people represent only 3% of the total population, yet more than 28% of Australia’s prison population are Aboriginal.” (“Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits," 2014) The causes of this trend are complicated and multi-causal. Part of the blame is the criminal justice system itself, the ways police officers enforce laws and in the way laws are written and prosecuted. However, in many cases it is not overt racism by individual actors. To get to the roots of this overrepresentation I will assume, based on previous literature regarding this issue, that what is at stake here is a combination of indirect discrimination1 and institutional bias2. (Cunneen, 2006) The interplay of those is what seemingly leads to the legal overrepresentation. However, this raises the question of how this racism and biased decision making comes about.
In an attempt to provide a possible explanatory model, my research question is as follows: How can we explain the institutional bias embodied through legal overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Australian criminal justice system? I seek to give a solution by making use of concepts in classical sociological theory. The two tentative answers seek to complement each other with the first one employing Weberian concepts and the second one arguing in Durkheimian terms.
1. The Australian society is a closed system of stratification - not allowing for social mobility on part of the Indigenous population. Consequently, they are trapped in an ongoing cycle of disadvantage.
2. The fact that Australian Society is characterised by different types of solidarities leads to the national government not adequately representing the entire Australian population - to an extent where the marginalized group is being indirectly discriminated against and over-represented in national crime statistics.
WEBERIAN ANALYSIS
To begin with it is crucial to illustrate Weber’s approach to social stratification, which for the case at hand should rather be understood in terms of racial stratification.
From there I will argue that Australian society on part of the Indigenous community is a closed system of stratification not allowing for social mobility which also prevents the Aboriginal community from forming parties, something which is crucial if you are striving for racial equality. Social stratification is a term used to describe social inequalities. It refers to a person’s position in a stratified society. Social inequalities create a hierarchy of privileges in areas such as property, prestige and power and may be evident between the groups recognized as the classes, the races, the genders or nationalities. Social inequality exists when people have unequal access to property, wealth, power and prestige and in the case at hand exists between the dominant and the minority group. It relates to an unequal distribution of resources within and between societies, that is between the Western or White Australian society and Aboriginal society. Sometimes this inequality is intentionally created whilst at other times it is a consequence of social processes and relationships. Stratification is often defined in terms of socio-economic status, which can be determined in many ways. (e.g. income, wealth, education) These measures reflect the characteristics of wealth, prestige and power that a person holds and the three combined can indicate a person’s social status. (Hughes, Martin, & Sharrock, 199) In order to link racial stratification to social mobility it is necessary to look at the system of stratification which exists in Australia. To do so I will only consider the system which prevails between ‘White’ (non-aboriginal Australians) and ‘Black’ (Indigenous Australians), meaning I will concentrate on racial relations and the strata they bring forth. Social systems fluctuate regarding
their extent of social mobility, that is vertical mobility may change over time or with respect to different groups. I argue that for the Indigenous population, the Australian society represents a closed system of stratification, meaning that an Aborigine has practically no opportunity to move up the ladder of social strata and raise his position in society for the better. An individual’s stance in the stratification system has significant consequences for other aspects of their lives. In Weberian terms, the Indigenous Australian community has no or very little access to resources such as wealth, property, power and prestige. Weber coined the term ‘life chances’ to describe the prospects one has regarding advancement in quality of life. The concept is a probabilistic one as it illustrates how likely it is for people in a specific situations where their lives will lead. (Hughes, Martin, & Sharrock, 1995) In Australia the common factor ‘being Aboriginal’ puts all people of Aboriginal descent into a comparable situation which suggests that their actions lead to similar results. Results which are deplorable and indicate that most of the Indigenous Australians are trapped in an ongoing cycle of disadvantage. Evidence for this can be found in government and legal statistics. See ("Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits," 2014)
The fact that this cycle of disadvantage is impenetrable for the Indigenous Australians might be explained by the Black population’s inability to form a party and thus to counteract the government’s breaching of discriminatory laws. The formation of parties is obviously closely related to power, which brings us back to Weber who argued that power can manifest itself in the political system through parties. He defined power as “the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realising them” (Weber, 1904) Hence, if the Indigenous community was able to form a party and thus influence the law-making process, institutional bias might be circumvented. Until now however, Aboriginal Australians have not been able to do so which is to be traced back to the government’s inability to respect and include the Indigenous community in their decision making. In fact, Aboriginal people are not consulted about policy and planning. In many places Aboriginal people want to be involved and care enough. Including them would not only give voice to their problems but also restore their pride and integrity. When the British arrived in 1788, Australian Aborigines had to fast adapt to Western society which radically changed their lives as their traditional laws and governance were undermined by White Authority (Saban & Curtis, n.d.)
DURKHEIMIAN ANALYSIS
Considering classical Durkheimian theory on solidarity, collective consciousness and the role of the state complements Weberian analysis on social (im)mobility and can take us further in answering the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of institutional bias and indirect racial discrimination against the Indigenous Australian community. Durkheim recognised that different types of society inhabit different types of solidarity. He distinguished between mechanical solidarity corresponding to pre-industrial, small-scale societies and organic solidarity existent in industrial, capitalist societies. (Hughes, Martin, & Sharrock, 1995) The economic organization for traditional societies is production for local use and subsistence needs in the community. Modern society has an industrialist capitalist market system where people do not produce for their own needs but instead for other people’s needs. Thus, requiring them to meet all of their own needs through the purchase of items on the market. Durkheim theorized the difference between modern and traditional society in terms of social solidarity. Traditional society is literally held together with a different social glue than modern society. Thus traditional society represents a different species of society than modern society does. Traditional societies are held together with mechanical solidarity which is defined as a collective consciousness, a group mind that is shared amongst all the members of society which binds them together in a moral community. The center of mechanical solidarity is a sacred collective type which serves as a source of identity for those within the group. Ritual is essential to the maintenance of mechanical solidarity. They allow for the group to visually and physically experience the power of the group over the self. The group behavior is dominated by conformity to a shared belief. Thus ritual behavior is the quintessential mechanically bonded activity. People acting together , reproducing the ritual, reproducing the mythic structure of the group and affirming the existence of the collective type.
Durkheim further divides consciousness up into two categories. Collective consciousness represents the shared belief of the group whereas individual consciousness represents the part of the mind that is devoted to individuality, individual pursuits , individual self-management. In mechanically bonded societies, collective consciousness dominates individual consciousness. A person thinks of him primarily as a part of the group rather than an individual.
In organically bonded modern societies it is the division of labour and specialisation which separates people. As people divide up their labour and specialize, the collective type cannot hold. As people become more individual a new bond emerges, namely organic bonding. The desperate need that people have for the work of others creates a social space for individual freedom. Modernity depends upon a division of labour and a specialisation of function which means that individuals act throughout the day without the group around them and in ways that are individually directed. This causes the individual consciousness to grow and the collective one to shrink. Durkheim argues that the bond which holds together modern societies is organic solidarity which he defines as the desperate reciprocal need that we have for each other’s labor. Consequently, the reality that none of us can survive without the other’s contribution is the bonding force of the modern world.
On the surface it seems as if Australia, as an industrial, capitalist nation with a division of labour, is held together by organic solidarity. However, when considering the Aboriginal community we encounter some contradictions. In fact, when looking at the features of Aboriginal culture, life and interaction one will immediately be able to assert that Indigenous people are bound by mechanical solidarity. Not only do they attach extreme value to religion but also to the community. Similar to pre-industrial societies do their systems consist of tribes and rest upon family networks (Saban & Curtis, n.d.). Hence, I argue that Australia comprises two types of society and consequently also the two types of solidarity which correlate with these societies. On the one hand there is the majority of Australian society, I may call it the White population which is held together by organic solidarity. Whereas on the other hand there is the minority, namely the Indigenous community which is bound by mechanical solidarity.
With the research question in mind, we shall now turn to Durkheim’s conception of the state in order to reveal how institutional bias might be generated. According to Durkheim, the state should be “a representation of the collective consciousness and should embody principles of morality in structures”(Palumbo & Scott, 2003) In the case at hand, the structure is the justice system. However, Durkheim also stated that in large societies (like Australia) the state is so detached from individual concerns meaning that it cannot respect particular situations. And when it does try to control them it does so only by making use of violence. Yet, Durkheim adds that the state then needs to be constrained by other organs. (Palumbo & Scott, 2003) These other organs which serve the purpose of restraining the government’s violent behaviour regarding certain instances seem to not exist in Australia, at least not when we consider that laws have been breached which infringed upon Aboriginal people. Seeing the Australian government repeatedly violating the Rights of its Indigenous people goes against Durkheim’s belief that the modern state safeguards individual freedom, acts moral towards all of its citizen and represents the conscience collective. However, if we argue from the assumption that there is two sets of solidarity, collective and individual consciousness, present in Australian society we might arrive at an explanation. The Australian government is formed by almost only Non-Aboriginal people, people that probably grew up, like most White Australians, detached from Aboriginal communities, people that live in the part of Australian society which is held together by organic solidarity. As previously mentioned, societies bound by organic solidarity are characterised by and value completely different aspects than those bound by mechanical solidarity. It might therefore be stated that values and norms of the White and the Black Australian population are highly divergent. Since the (White) government probably internalized those norms and values peculiar to organic solidarity, it is not able to comprehend those characteristic of mechanical solidarity which holds together the Aboriginal community. This misunderstanding of Aboriginal life and the absence of a party formed by Indigenous people leads to the Australian government not adequately representing its Indigenous population, to an extent where violence seems to be the only way for them to control its Aboriginal population. Analysing the issue in the Durkheimian sense makes the Australian state and in particular its legal system look like they unconsciously, that is without intend, discriminating against Aboriginal Australians. Simply because there is a unwanted misunderstanding. But is this really the case? What about assimilationist policies? Were they not intended? Was it not a conscious decision when Indigenous people were forced off their homelands in order to make room for more mining endeavors?
CONCLUSION
In other Western countries Indigenous people still suffer. But unlike Australia, historical treaties have been signed, the begin to recognise their right to self-determination. Australia is the only developed country repeatedly condemned for the abuse of its Indigenous people. Now and then Australian governments talk of reconciliation. An acceptable idea... that has not built decent homes or got rid of, blindness in Aboriginal children, malnutrition and dickensian diseases. It has not stopped young people suiciding nor has it stopped a land grab that has started two centuries ago. Like Apartheid in South Africa, reconciliation is not possible without justice. Racial inequality in the criminal justice system gets ignored simply because it does not affect most people. This paper attempted to shed light on the issue of institutional bias concerning Australia’s Indigenous people and tried to provide an explanatory model using concepts of Weber and Durkheim in order to illustrate how this institutional bias may come about. The answers are satisfactory but make the Australian state look like it unitentionally discriminates against the Indigenous Australians, which is, when taking into consideration the many governmental actions against Aborigines, definitely not true! In Australia, White is the default race to which all others are comparative. This allows for a system of privileges, namely White privilege that are designed to benefit the majority and controlling group. Historical racist and discriminatory practices resulted in a stratified society which still persists today. Despite of the fact that numerous laws have been enacted, the circumstance remains that there is a hierarchy in socio-economic status that is correlated to race where the White population dominates the top socio-economic status level.
References
Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits. (2014, November). Retrieved from http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/aboriginal-prison-rates
Australian Human Rights Commission. (1997, April). Bringing them Home Report (1997) | Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-report-1997
Cunneen, C. (2006). Racism, Discrimination and the Over-Representation of Indigenous People in the Criminal Justice System: Some Conceptual and Explanatory Issues by Chris Cunneen :: SSRN. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298241
Direct and indirect discrimination - simplified. (2012, January). Retrieved from http://www.victorianhumanrightscommission.com/www/simplified-definitions
Hughes, J. A., Martin, P. J., & Sharrock, W. W. (1995). Understanding classical sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim. London: Sage.
Institutional racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
Palumbo, A., & Scott, A. (2003). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/683120/Weber_Durkheim_and_the_sociology_of_the_modern_state
Saban, S., & Curtis, D. (n.d.). Our Generation. Retrieved from http://www.ourgeneration.org.au/
Weber, M. (1904, May). Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/30609_4.pdf