5 ms·

leaving former criminals with little chance at success It's worth noting that it also leaves their children a smaller chance at success as well[0], and then th

by dfxm12 6y ago

leaving former criminals with little chance at success It's worth noting that it also leaves their children a smaller chance at success as well[0], and then the cycle continues. When you add this to the fact that Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders [1], this adds up to one aspect of systemic racism in America. 0 - https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/captive-lives/ https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/captive-lives/ 1 - https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-d...

asdfghjkl87 6y ago
Not to mention the systemic misandry: Female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, as they had for the prior four periods.
NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
It's important to note that [1] seems to refer to federal sentencing, and almost all criminal law in the U.S. is state law. [1] is a small subset of what's going on, and it can't be used to generalize.
- whack 6y ago
  Election polls are a tiny subset of the general public, but they do offer very powerful insights into wider trends. Is there any reason to believe that Federal judges are more racially biased compared to State judges? I'd be shocked if State judges as a group are more color-blind than Federal judges.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
    Election polls are designed to do exactly that, whereas this sample isn't anything even approaching a random subset that could be used for inference about the whole population. It may be the case that in state courtrooms judges are the same, worse, or better, but making that inference on the basis of federal-level data is probably unjustified.
- shadowfox 6y ago
  Not the OP, but it is interesting that the US criminal law is so state dependent. Out of curiosity: do you have reason to believe that the sentencing disparity is better when considering states?
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    Hypothetical reasons why this may be the case: 1. The most egregiously racist judges probably work in districts which they rarely encounter minorities. 2. Regions with large minority populations have to deal with much more crime in general, so may have lighter sentences for equally severe crimes. 3. Minorities are more likely to plead out and never go to trial, skewing sample size. To be clear, I doubt that state judges are better than federal ones. After all, criminal justice corruption in smaller towns in America is staggering. Not too long ago, a judge was indicted for being bribed by the owners of a jail to hand down severe sentences to minority offenders.
  - samatman 6y ago
    I have reason to believe that the sentencing disparity is like the gender pay gap: easy to prove, if that helps your political goals, and also easy to disprove, if that suits you better. Statistics is hard, and the entire reason there's leeway in sentencing is to account for situations which are resistant to statistical regularity. There is, or was, a pretty obvious source of disparity in US law: freebase cocaine was a felony at much smaller quantities than cocaine salt, and the former was more likely to be used and dealt by black Americans. Would that show up in such an analysis? They were different convictions, after all. So the only answer can be "yes or no", and so on ad infinitum.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I'm fairly convinced that the fact that marijuana is illegal (federally) and alcohol/tobacco are legal without a prescription has more to do with the populations who typically used them than with any medical or scientific basis on dangerousness. https://www.businessinsider.com/racist-origins-marijuana-prohibition-legalization-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/racist-origins-marijuana-pro...
centimeter 6y ago
It’s funny watching people come up with all these complicated epicycle-ridden theories for why success is heritable, when the true answer is very obvious - most behaviors related to success are highly genetically heritable. This is the incontrovertible conclusion one draws when they critically observe the results of highly controlled and conditioned twin/sibling studies (on incarceration rate, among other things). Of course, this flies against the western “all men are created equal” soft-religious indoctrination most people get in school, so it’s less difficult for them to come up with these complicated (and relatively very unlikely) models.
- charlesu 6y ago
  > most behaviors related to success are highly genetically heritable And the implications of this are what? See, that's the problem with these claims. They serve no purpose other than to suggest that some people are inherently better or more deserving than others. But we live in a liberal democracy based on equality before the law. It wouldn't matter if some people are more predisposed to crime or smarter or whatever. The law should be blind.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    The implication is that if one genetic group is getting poorer outcomes than another group, you can't automatically assume it's due to discrimination. This is an important implication because it completely undercuts many extremely important power structures, which use accusations of discrimination as their legitimizing argument. Which is why the science on this is resisted so hard. The idea of anyone being inferior to anyone else is completely something you brought into the conversation. Normal people understand that being short does not make one inferior, nor does skin color, nor personality, nor intelligence. It just changes statistical outcomes. Not moral value. If you think genetic differences between people make some people morally inferior, I would say that's a moral problem with you. Because even on the individual level, if not the group level, genetic differences are obvious and undeniable. Do you really think someone who scores low on an IQ test is morally inferior to you or deserves to suffer? I don't. If not, what's the problem with accepting the science on genetic group difference, especially given that it helps us reduce suffering in the world?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hnracer 6y ago
Is there any evidence that the sentences are longer after controlling for variables such as (1) differences in previous convictions which increase sentence duration, (2) severity of the crime? If this evidence is provided, I am happy to agree with you that there is systematic racism in the justice system.
- dhosek 6y ago
  Yes. There is abundant evidence of this.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    Link?
    - dhosek 6y ago
      I found this with literally 30 seconds of googling. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... Don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework.
    - dhosek 6y ago
      Also, here's a lengthy summary of a wide variety of instances of racial bias in the justice system from policing to sentencing and so forth with links to primary sources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/system... Again, don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework for you.

by dfxm12 6y ago

asdfghjkl87 6y ago

Not to mention the systemic misandry: Female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, as they had for the prior four periods.

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago

It's important to note that [1] seems to refer to federal sentencing, and almost all criminal law in the U.S. is state law. [1] is a small subset of what's going on, and it can't be used to generalize.

whack 6y ago
Election polls are a tiny subset of the general public, but they do offer very powerful insights into wider trends. Is there any reason to believe that Federal judges are more racially biased compared to State judges? I'd be shocked if State judges as a group are more color-blind than Federal judges.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
  Election polls are designed to do exactly that, whereas this sample isn't anything even approaching a random subset that could be used for inference about the whole population. It may be the case that in state courtrooms judges are the same, worse, or better, but making that inference on the basis of federal-level data is probably unjustified.
shadowfox 6y ago
Not the OP, but it is interesting that the US criminal law is so state dependent. Out of curiosity: do you have reason to believe that the sentencing disparity is better when considering states?
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Hypothetical reasons why this may be the case: 1. The most egregiously racist judges probably work in districts which they rarely encounter minorities. 2. Regions with large minority populations have to deal with much more crime in general, so may have lighter sentences for equally severe crimes. 3. Minorities are more likely to plead out and never go to trial, skewing sample size. To be clear, I doubt that state judges are better than federal ones. After all, criminal justice corruption in smaller towns in America is staggering. Not too long ago, a judge was indicted for being bribed by the owners of a jail to hand down severe sentences to minority offenders.
- samatman 6y ago
  I have reason to believe that the sentencing disparity is like the gender pay gap: easy to prove, if that helps your political goals, and also easy to disprove, if that suits you better. Statistics is hard, and the entire reason there's leeway in sentencing is to account for situations which are resistant to statistical regularity. There is, or was, a pretty obvious source of disparity in US law: freebase cocaine was a felony at much smaller quantities than cocaine salt, and the former was more likely to be used and dealt by black Americans. Would that show up in such an analysis? They were different convictions, after all. So the only answer can be "yes or no", and so on ad infinitum.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I'm fairly convinced that the fact that marijuana is illegal (federally) and alcohol/tobacco are legal without a prescription has more to do with the populations who typically used them than with any medical or scientific basis on dangerousness. https://www.businessinsider.com/racist-origins-marijuana-prohibition-legalization-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/racist-origins-marijuana-pro...

centimeter 6y ago

It’s funny watching people come up with all these complicated epicycle-ridden theories for why success is heritable, when the true answer is very obvious - most behaviors related to success are highly genetically heritable. This is the incontrovertible conclusion one draws when they critically observe the results of highly controlled and conditioned twin/sibling studies (on incarceration rate, among other things). Of course, this flies against the western “all men are created equal” soft-religious indoctrination most people get in school, so it’s less difficult for them to come up with these complicated (and relatively very unlikely) models.

charlesu 6y ago
> most behaviors related to success are highly genetically heritable And the implications of this are what? See, that's the problem with these claims. They serve no purpose other than to suggest that some people are inherently better or more deserving than others. But we live in a liberal democracy based on equality before the law. It wouldn't matter if some people are more predisposed to crime or smarter or whatever. The law should be blind.
- jlawson 6y ago
  The implication is that if one genetic group is getting poorer outcomes than another group, you can't automatically assume it's due to discrimination. This is an important implication because it completely undercuts many extremely important power structures, which use accusations of discrimination as their legitimizing argument. Which is why the science on this is resisted so hard. The idea of anyone being inferior to anyone else is completely something you brought into the conversation. Normal people understand that being short does not make one inferior, nor does skin color, nor personality, nor intelligence. It just changes statistical outcomes. Not moral value. If you think genetic differences between people make some people morally inferior, I would say that's a moral problem with you. Because even on the individual level, if not the group level, genetic differences are obvious and undeniable. Do you really think someone who scores low on an IQ test is morally inferior to you or deserves to suffer? I don't. If not, what's the problem with accepting the science on genetic group difference, especially given that it helps us reduce suffering in the world?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hnracer 6y ago

Is there any evidence that the sentences are longer after controlling for variables such as (1) differences in previous convictions which increase sentence duration, (2) severity of the crime? If this evidence is provided, I am happy to agree with you that there is systematic racism in the justice system.

dhosek 6y ago
Yes. There is abundant evidence of this.
- hnracer 6y ago
  Link?
  - dhosek 6y ago
    I found this with literally 30 seconds of googling. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... Don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    Also, here's a lengthy summary of a wide variety of instances of racial bias in the justice system from policing to sentencing and so forth with links to primary sources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/system... Again, don't be willfully ignorant and don't expect other people to do your homework for you.