4 ms·

Someone mentioned that Holmes will likely get a relatively light sentence because she is an attractive white woman. I've read there is good evidence that black

by MarkMc 5y ago

Someone mentioned that Holmes will likely get a relatively light sentence because she is an attractive white woman. I've read there is good evidence that black people get harsher sentences than white people and men get harsher sentences than women, other factors being equal. I suspect there is also evidence attractive people get lighter sentences than ugly people. The current system seems like a clear-cut violation of the US constitution's Equal Protection clause. So why doesn't an organisation like the ACLU take legal action to force all sentencing to be done by a judge who is unaware of the race, sex and attractiveness of the defendant?

cmckn 5y ago
Probably wise to avoid postulating until she is actually sentenced.
pvg 5y ago
Because there's a sixth as well as a fourteenth amendment
- jasonfarnon 5y ago
  what's the relevance of those amendments? are you misreading the right to confrontation?
manquer 5y ago
First Equal Protection clause from the 14th Amendment applies to only states and not federally. [1] Second, It is extremely hard to prove that discrimination happens while all other things are equal . Rarely all other things are also equal as there are many strongly correlated factors with race[2] that can adversely impact conviction, for example being black on average would be poorer and would more have a court appointed attorney who is looking to close a case(given his load) rather than win for each defendant and push a defendant to plea out than go to trial etc. Is this directly because he is black ? Race, age and gender are objectively measurable [3], "attractiveness" is lot more subjective to eyes of the beholder. How do you even come up with a scale for legal purpose of measuring bias like this ? U.S. follows trial by jury, by definition that means the jury of peers are to take the law and your entire specific example and act with full freedom as they see fit ( even nullify laws if they wish to do so). In a such a system there will be biases, because people are inherently biased. While there are some efforts to reduce this, like no all white juries against black defendants etc, unless there is fundamentally different system biases can not be eliminated. The biggest determining factor is Money. Richer you are, less likely to have trouble with law, and get away with a lot. White, young, female and attractive correlates to being rich. Sadly that is how the world works. [1] There are similar protections in the 5th Amendment Due Process Clauses that can be applied at a federal level. [2] Similar examples to other factors as well [3] Race and Gender can have some ambiguity but in most cases it is clear
- jasonfarnon 5y ago
  1. This is a federal not state case. 2. Yes it is hard to prove discrimination controlling for all other things. Yet courts routinely do this. There is a process in place. Moreover, findings of discrimination have led to other structural changes in the judicial system, e.g., administration of the death penalty. 3. OP was talking about blinding the judge, not the jury. Sentencing, not verdict. I agree that attractiveness is ridiculously subjective. What I like about OP's argument is, I can think of few legit reasons for a sentencing judge (as opposed to fact-finding jury) to need to see a defendant rather than just hearing the arguments being made, and I can think of many drawbacks to allowing a judge to do so, such as conscious or unconscious biases.
  - manquer 5y ago
    I am aware it is federal, which is why i was pointing out that equal protection clause does not apply directly.
- MarkMc 5y ago
  > First Equal Protection clause from the 14th Amendment applies to only states and not federally The Holmes case was merely the catalyst for my thinking. The point remains: Why isn't there a legal push to have blind sentencing, at least for state crimes? > Second, It is extremely hard to prove that discrimination happens while all other things are equal. It's not that hard. You take a sentencing case - say, guilty plea to armed robbery with no prior convictions - and pair it with a similar case where the defendant is a different race (ideally without know the actual races involved). You do that for 1000 cases and then show that the sentencing is generally harsher for one race than the other. > U.S. follows trial by jury...In a such a system there will be biases, because people are inherently biased I'm talking about making sentencing less biased. I don't have any suggestions for making the trial less biased. > The biggest determining factor is Money. Richer you are, less likely to have trouble with law, and get away with a lot. OK but when it comes to sentencing money should not be a factor - rich and poor should receive a similar sentence for a similar crime. > Race, age and gender are objectively measurable [3], "attractiveness" is lot more subjective to eyes of the beholder. Sure, but it's not completely random. If you and I both choose the most attractive person in a group of 10 people, the chance that we both choose the same person is far greater than 10%. Let's say we ask 100 people to rate defendants by attractiveness and use the average score for each defendant. It's quite possible we would find the gap in sentencing severity between the top-10% and bottom-10% people in terms of attractiveness is greater than the gap between black and white defendants. But it's really a moot point - if we prevent the sentencing judge from knowing the race and sex of the defendant then the judge will also not know how attractive he or she is.

by MarkMc 5y ago

cmckn 5y ago

Probably wise to avoid postulating until she is actually sentenced.

pvg 5y ago

Because there's a sixth as well as a fourteenth amendment

jasonfarnon 5y ago
what's the relevance of those amendments? are you misreading the right to confrontation?

manquer 5y ago

First Equal Protection clause from the 14th Amendment applies to only states and not federally. [1] Second, It is extremely hard to prove that discrimination happens while all other things are equal . Rarely all other things are also equal as there are many strongly correlated factors with race[2] that can adversely impact conviction, for example being black on average would be poorer and would more have a court appointed attorney who is looking to close a case(given his load) rather than win for each defendant and push a defendant to plea out than go to trial etc. Is this directly because he is black ? Race, age and gender are objectively measurable [3], "attractiveness" is lot more subjective to eyes of the beholder. How do you even come up with a scale for legal purpose of measuring bias like this ? U.S. follows trial by jury, by definition that means the jury of peers are to take the law and your entire specific example and act with full freedom as they see fit ( even nullify laws if they wish to do so). In a such a system there will be biases, because people are inherently biased. While there are some efforts to reduce this, like no all white juries against black defendants etc, unless there is fundamentally different system biases can not be eliminated. The biggest determining factor is Money. Richer you are, less likely to have trouble with law, and get away with a lot. White, young, female and attractive correlates to being rich. Sadly that is how the world works. [1] There are similar protections in the 5th Amendment Due Process Clauses that can be applied at a federal level. [2] Similar examples to other factors as well [3] Race and Gender can have some ambiguity but in most cases it is clear

jasonfarnon 5y ago
1. This is a federal not state case. 2. Yes it is hard to prove discrimination controlling for all other things. Yet courts routinely do this. There is a process in place. Moreover, findings of discrimination have led to other structural changes in the judicial system, e.g., administration of the death penalty. 3. OP was talking about blinding the judge, not the jury. Sentencing, not verdict. I agree that attractiveness is ridiculously subjective. What I like about OP's argument is, I can think of few legit reasons for a sentencing judge (as opposed to fact-finding jury) to need to see a defendant rather than just hearing the arguments being made, and I can think of many drawbacks to allowing a judge to do so, such as conscious or unconscious biases.
- manquer 5y ago
  I am aware it is federal, which is why i was pointing out that equal protection clause does not apply directly.
MarkMc 5y ago
> First Equal Protection clause from the 14th Amendment applies to only states and not federally The Holmes case was merely the catalyst for my thinking. The point remains: Why isn't there a legal push to have blind sentencing, at least for state crimes? > Second, It is extremely hard to prove that discrimination happens while all other things are equal. It's not that hard. You take a sentencing case - say, guilty plea to armed robbery with no prior convictions - and pair it with a similar case where the defendant is a different race (ideally without know the actual races involved). You do that for 1000 cases and then show that the sentencing is generally harsher for one race than the other. > U.S. follows trial by jury...In a such a system there will be biases, because people are inherently biased I'm talking about making sentencing less biased. I don't have any suggestions for making the trial less biased. > The biggest determining factor is Money. Richer you are, less likely to have trouble with law, and get away with a lot. OK but when it comes to sentencing money should not be a factor - rich and poor should receive a similar sentence for a similar crime. > Race, age and gender are objectively measurable [3], "attractiveness" is lot more subjective to eyes of the beholder. Sure, but it's not completely random. If you and I both choose the most attractive person in a group of 10 people, the chance that we both choose the same person is far greater than 10%. Let's say we ask 100 people to rate defendants by attractiveness and use the average score for each defendant. It's quite possible we would find the gap in sentencing severity between the top-10% and bottom-10% people in terms of attractiveness is greater than the gap between black and white defendants. But it's really a moot point - if we prevent the sentencing judge from knowing the race and sex of the defendant then the judge will also not know how attractive he or she is.