Since the start of the recent riots, there has been much talk about ‘two tier policing’. Commentators on the right allege that the criminal justice system is biased against whites and right-wing movements, and is biased in favour of non-whites and left-wing movements. Meanwhile, those on the left insist that it’s actually biased in the other direction.
These claims are mirrored in voting patterns. Labour and Green voters tend to think the police are biased against ethnic minorities; Reform voters tend to think they are biased against white people and the far-right.
Where does the truth lie? A big problem is that practically all the evidence cited on both sides is anecdotal. Pointing to a few examples of people being unfairly treated isn’t a very strong argument. Britain is a big country: in the year ending March 2024, there were over half a million prosecutions for non-motoring offences. Hence it’s always possible to find a few cases that seem like grave miscarriages of justice. To justify a claim of ‘two tier policing’ or, more accurately, ‘two tier justice’, you need to show evidence of systematic bias.
Right-wing commentators can point to anti-immigration activists who received harsh sentences for posts that were said to constitute incitement. Left-wing commentators can point to environmental activists who received harsh sentences for trying to recruit volunteers for disruptive actions. Right-wing commentators can cite questionable arrests of anti-lockdown and anti-immigration protestors. Left-wing commentators can cite questionable arrests of anti-monarchy and pro-Palestine campaigners. Right-wing commentators can mention anecdotal reports of police bias. Left-wing commentators can do the same.
Is there a better way to resolve the debate than simply trading anecdotes?
The grooming gang scandal, where police failed to protect vulnerable white girls for fear of appearing ‘racist’ against Pakistani Muslims, does constitute evidence of systematic bias. So does the fact that police routinely engage with ‘community leaders’ for some ethnic groups but not for others. Are the right-wing commentators correct then? No, because there’s also evidence of systematic bias on the other side.
Several studies have analysed sentencing decisions in British courts and found that black and Asian offenders are more likely to get a custodial sentence than white offenders, even when controlling for many relevant factors, such as measures of culpability and harm caused. Of course, it’s difficult to control for all relevant factors, but the data do suggest a bias in the direction claimed by left-wing commentators. (Such commentators also claim that police use-of-force is biased. However, I’m not convinced.)
Overall, the evidence is too messy to say that one particular demographic group is consistently favoured or disfavoured by the criminal justice system. There are certainly examples of bias and unfairness, but they don’t generalise to all contexts. Claims of ‘two tier justice’ are therefore unsupported.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.