« Some early chatter and speculation about Sam Bankman-Fried's coming federal sentencing | Main | "Laffer’s Day in Court: The Revenue Effects of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines" »
November 14, 2023
New US Sentencing Commission releases new updated report on "Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing"
The US Sentencing Commission this morning released this notable new research report titled "Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing." As noted in this 2020 post, the USSC has completed similar reports looking at federal sentencing outcomes and the way its advisory guidelines function about every five or six years since the Booker ruling, and this latest report is summarized on this USSC webpage in this way:
The Commission has studied the issue of demographic differences in sentencing throughout its history. In four prior reports, studying various time periods, the Commission has examined whether differences in the length of federal sentences imposed on individuals were associated with demographic characteristics of those individuals.
Based on continued interest in this issue and consistent with best practices, the Commission re-examined and refined the analytical methods used in its previous reports to better understand sentencing disparity in the federal courts. Using new analytical techniques and newly available data, this report examines federal sentencing practices in the five fiscal years after the 2017 report to determine if the differences observed in the Commission’s prior reports continued to persist.
This report presents the results of that work, and furthers the Commission’s mandates to establish sentencing policies and practices that eliminate unwarranted sentencing disparities and to serve as a center for information on federal sentencing practices.
The USSC webpage also sets forth these "Key Findings":
Sentencing differences continued to exist across demographic groups when examining all sentences imposed during the five-year study period (fiscal years 2017-2021). These disparities were observed across demographic groups — both among males and females.
- Specifically, Black males received sentences 13.4 percent longer, and Hispanic males received sentences 11.2 percent longer, than White males.
- Hispanic females received sentences 27.8 percent longer than White females, while Other race females received sentences 10.0 percent shorter.
The sentencing differences in the data the Commission examined largely can be attributed to the initial decision of whether the sentence should include incarceration at all rather than to the length of the prison term once a decision to impose one has been made. In particular, the likelihood of receiving a probationary sentence varied substantially by gender and race.
- Black males were 23.4 percent less likely, and Hispanic males were 26.6 percent less likely, to receive a probationary sentence compared to White males.
- Similar trends were observed among females, with Black and Hispanic females less likely to receive a probation sentence than White females (11.2% percent less likely and 29.7% less likely, respectively).
The sentencing differences were less pronounced when the analyses focused solely on cases in which a sentence of imprisonment was imposed, which comprise 94 percent of all cases sentenced during the five-year study period.
- Focusing solely on these cases, Black males received lengths of incarceration 4.7 percent longer, and Hispanic male received lengths of incarceration 1.9 percent longer, than White males.
- There was little difference among females receiving a sentence of imprisonment. The only statistically significant difference in the length of imprisonment among females was among Hispanic females, who received lengths of incarceration 5.9 percent shorter than White females.
Differences in the length of imprisonment across demographic groups were concentrated among individuals who received relatively short sentences.
- Among individuals sentenced to 18 months or less incarceration, Black males received lengths of incarceration 6.8 percent longer than White males. The difference narrowed to 1.3 percent for individuals who received sentences of greater than 18 months to 60 months; but for sentences longer than 60 months, Black males received lengths of incarceration approximately one percent shorter than White males. Few differences were statistically significant when comparing sentences for females.
Across all analyses, females received sentences that were shorter, on average, than males.
- When examining all sentences imposed, females received sentences 29.2 percent shorter than males. Females of all races were 39.6 percent more likely to receive a probation sentence than males. When examining only sentences of incarceration, females received lengths of incarceration 11.3 percent shorter than males.
November 14, 2023 at 10:44 AM | Permalink
Comments
Talking about differences in race and sex without talking about differences in behavior is worse than mere nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 14, 2023 4:33:48 PM
Bill, I trust you understand that the USSC is here reporting on sophisticated statistical analysis that controls for difference in behavior. The USSC explains this at length at the start of the report (pp. 6-8). Did you review the actual report? Here is a quote speaking to your point: "The Commission’s research uses multiple regression to provide an estimate of the effect of explanatory variables of interest (e.g., race and gender) on an outcome variable (e.g., sentence length) while controlling for the effects of many other variables that also affect that outcome (e.g., offense type)."
Are you claiming that this kind of regression analysis of sentencing outcomes is misguided? Or are you just tilting at statistical windmills because you do not like any data?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 14, 2023 4:51:43 PM
Ah, yes, Doug.
They used the phrase, “regression analysis!” All must be good!
I used my own regression analysis model and came out with different findings. Their model is BS.
Seriously, though, it is easy to not take this seriously. Why? Because demographics that do not support their findings are left out.
What about the Asian demographic? Are we not racist towards them? The Jewish population?
They are left out because they are inconvenient. They commit fewer crimes and fewer ghastly crimes than even the white population. They do better in school, achieve better in the economy, and have strong traditional families. Dollars to donuts, they come out better than the rest of us in their “regression analysis.”
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 14, 2023 5:23:01 PM
Doug --
I'm way, way past being bamboozled by junk science (and junk math) and all the accompanying razzle-dazzle. The academia/"expert" cesspool, not content with mere anti-Semitism and cheerleading for Hamas (I'm sure you've read about the numerous episodes), wants to obsess about identity and shove behind the curtain what actually counts -- behavior.
I have at most minimal interest in the sex, color or age of the criminal population -- every one of which is grossly dissimilar to the distribution in the general population. So what? Contrary to the Leftist mantra, people don't go to jail because of their identity. They go to jail because their provable behavior puts them there. All the rest is just part of the seemingly endless attempt to sew corrosive, identity-based division.
I have no clue why you think this is good for America.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 14, 2023 9:43:41 PM
Bill,
Read about? Doug is surely familiar with what is going on at his own campus. Two recent hate crimes against Jews and keeping up a museum display by an “artist” who celebrated 10/7.
Ohio State’s head of the “Association of University Professors” is also the faculty advisor of “Students for Justice in Palestine,” which has had some interesting things to say, including being pro-cop killer in addition to anti-Semitic duties.
I’m sure Doug’s favorite DEI staffers are all over this problem!
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 14, 2023 11:17:36 PM
The idea that the sentencing commission "shove[s] [behavior] behind the curtain" in its publications is nonsense. If anything, the commission's publications err in the other direction; they overstate the predictive effect of (e.g.) criminal history category on recidivism (see as a couple of examples their 2017 report on recidivism and aspects of their reports on the career offender guidelines).
So when the commission finds that - holding all else equal - black people get sent to prison significantly more frequently than white people that finding is almost certainly true. And I would think that finding, if true, would "actually count" for something unless we simply want to leave unaddressed the apparent judicial practice of imposing harsher sentences on people just because of their race.
I have no clue why you'd think that would be good for America.
Posted by: mp | Nov 15, 2023 1:51:50 AM
mp,
The question is not whether blacks get sent to prison more often. The question is, “Why?”
Doug,
In almost every indicator, African immigrants to the US do better than their African-American counterparts. Do you know of a source that compares crime figures between black immigrants and African-Americans? Do we suddenly forget to be racist with African immigrants, Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese?
This is a question that no one answers.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 15, 2023 2:53:00 AM
Bill and Master Tarls, I'd like to start again with a question I asked regarding another data report that you both assailed in the comments here recently: Have you read the full USSC report (at least quickly)? I do not believe I ever got an answer to my question about whether you actually read the CCJ report you were quick to attack. Did you? Do you even realize this USSC report comes from a US government agency and not from "academia"?
I hope you might honestly answer these basic questions, as I am inclined to infer that you did not actually read the CCJ data report or this USSC data report before attacking them. Indeed, I sense you did not even bother to check who produced them. It is hard (and not really worthwhile) to try to have an intelligent conversation about data and methods to analyze that data if you have not actually reviewed that data and analyses and just want to decry the broader culture war rather than actually talk about the report.
If you are both just spitting at data and analyses by a US government agency that you have not even taken the time to review (or even try to understand), perhaps that tells me something about America.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2023 9:54:15 AM
"Future research may provide greater insight into the observed differences if data not readily available to the Commission at the time of this report were collected on such factors as charging and plea bargaining decisions, and additional data about the history and characteristics of the individual being sentenced. Understanding the effects of these and possibly other factors may clarify the extent to which demographic factors impact the sentences imposed and, if such impact continues to be observed, at which stage(s) of the federal criminal justice process they occur. Additional research also is needed to determine the role of laws, policies, and practices that may be sources of demographic disparity in sentencing. Due to these limitations, the results of this or any regression analysis should be used with caution."
Says it all.
"Bill, I trust you understand that the USSC is here reporting on sophisticated statistical analysis that controls for difference in behavior."
Really? I saw something about "similarly situated," but I didn't see anything about how that was determined.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2023 10:58:34 AM
For decades, both before and after Booker made the guidelines advisory, the USSC has stressed that the data it captures about sentencing outcomes cannot fully account for the opaque realities of "such factors as charging and plea bargaining decisions" made by DOJ and its agents. For just one (of many) examples, the USSC has never done a report on the importand impact of sentencing appeal waivers because it does not collect such data and DOJ does not collect (or share) any such information.
Some academics have sought to do studies based on a variety of data sources on the impact of "charging and plea bargaining decisions" and those reports often suggest even great racial and gender disparities, especially as influences by severe drug mandatory minimums. For another example, here is a 1998 report from USSC researchers on the impact of substantial assistance: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/1998/199801_5K_Report.pdf. Key finding: "The evidence consistently indicated that factors that were associated with either the making of a §5K1.1 motion and/or the magnitude of the departure were not consistent with principles of equity. Expected factors (e.g., type of cooperation, benefit of cooperation, defendant culpability or function, relevant conduct, offense type) generally were found to be inadequate in explaining §5K1.1 departures. Even more worrisome, legally irrelevant factors (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship) were found to be statistically significant in explaining §5K1.1 departures."
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2023 11:36:17 AM
mp --
"So when the commission finds that - holding all else equal - black people get sent to prison significantly more frequently than white people that finding is almost certainly true. And I would think that finding, if true, would "actually count" for something unless we simply want to leave unaddressed the apparent judicial practice of imposing harsher sentences on people just because of their race."
There are hundreds of federal judges. Please name just, say, three who impose harsher sentences of defendants just because of their race.
Should I wait?
Sure I should!! You'll give me their names the same time you give me yours, to wit, never.
"I have no clue why you'd think that would be good for America."
You have no clue about lots of stuff. But we all have a good clue why you want to remain anonymous.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 15, 2023 11:46:07 AM
Bill, I will ask again: Did you read the USSC report before suggesting it was "junk science (and junk math)"?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2023 12:14:20 PM
Doug, can you tell us how they determined "similarly situated"? Without that, what value is the study?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2023 12:30:09 PM
Bill - literally every single comment you've made on this thread has been a complete non sequitur.
According to the sentencing commission, holding all else equal, black people are sentenced to prison more frequently than white people. Your responses to this finding have been variously: 1. to ask why "Asians" and "Jewish people" aren't included as categories in the commission's report; 2. to characterize the sentencing commission as a part of a "cesspool" that "cheerlead[s] for Hamas" (whoa); 3. to sneer, yet again, about anonymity on the internet (nobody cares); and 4. to ask for the names of specific judges who impose racially disparate sentences (I hope the idea behind this one isn't that if you can't name the judges who do it the stats aren't real because, for obvious reasons, that's quite false).
Literally none of this is responsive to the commission's finding that, holding all else equal, black people are sentenced to prison more frequently than white people. Just to be constructive, here are some examples of (more or less odious) things you could say that actually would be responsive to this finding: a. it's false because [insert legitimate reason here ... you said something about "razzle dazzle" above but it fell into the doctor heal thyself category]; b. it's true but I don't care; or c. it's true and we should try to fix it.
Please say which of these responses you endorse. I'll wait.
Posted by: mp | Nov 15, 2023 12:48:27 PM
Doug,
Not every word but I did go through it. As federalist points out, the description of “regression analysis” left me wanting more.
And do YOU know how this works? Do you think it was Judge Cleaves who spent thousands of hours doing research? They paid “academia” to do it, which quoted other members of academia as can be seen in the references.
I think we can trust the government, for the most part but not always, to report data. What we can’t trust is when they try to interpret it.
Any such “study,” that tries to link racism with the CJS or economics, must first determine why Asians, Jews, and even black immigrants do better than African-Americans. If they cannot, it is worthless.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 15, 2023 1:01:37 PM
mp, I don't think "all else equal" means what you think it does.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 15, 2023 1:16:14 PM
federalist - among other things, the commission's report controlled for 1. offense type, 2. criminal history category, 3. violent history, 4. presence of a weapon, 5. age, 6. guideline range, 7. cooperation, 8. mandatory minimum applicability, 9. whether the defendant was in custody or on pretrial release, and 10. citizenship.
So putting that all together, the commission found that an unarmed black citizen was more likely to be put in prison than an unarmed white citizen even if neither was subject to a mandatory minimum and both were the same age at the time of the offense, committed the same crime, had the same criminal record (including the same record of violence), faced the same final guidelines range, cooperated (or not), and were on pretrial release (or detained) during their federal case.
What's that old saying? "You do the crime you do the time ... especially if you're black." Looks a little off to me.
What else do you want to hold equal?
Posted by: mp | Nov 15, 2023 1:46:46 PM
Master Tarls, I assume you mean Judge Reeves, the chair of the USSC, not "Judge Cleaves." I am certain he did not run all the analysis, but I am also pretty sure he did not pay "the academy" to do so. As the USSC explains on its website, it has a research staff: "The Commission is a small federal agency of approximately 100 employees. Staff includes attorneys, researchers, data technicians, administrative personnel, and training, public information, and congressional specialists." I am not aware of any full-time members of the "academia" that are part of this USSC staff because I am pretty sure the USSC staff are full-time US government employees. And I am pretty sure the three prior iterations of this USSC study --- from 2006, 2012 and 2017 --- were also conducted by the USSC's full-time research staff.
By my count, Master Tarls, the report has about 30 pages of primary text, not counting an intro/overview and endnotes, and about 15+ of these pages discuss and describe various aspects of the "Commission's regression model.” What more are you looking for? You said above that you "used [your] own regression analysis model and came out with different findings." Can you share your findings? I would eagerly post them. Did you run your own regression on the there prior iterations of this report? Or are you just making this up?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2023 1:54:18 PM
federalist, in pages 6-8 of this report, the USSC explains its modeling, and Table 1 sets out the variables used in its past studies and tweaked for this study. The Commission explains the tweaking more fully in Appendix A. Appendix A runs five pages and explains, inter alia, why the Commission thought tweaking its model would even better capture past and present criminal behaviors. Check out page 24, for example, which explains the efforts of the Commission to collect data and run analyses that consider the violent (or non-violent) nature of past criminal history.
Please know, federalist, I am not a statistician and not able to claim that the USSC's data analyses are perfect or even "gold standard." But the cynicism and nihilism I see reflected in some comments --- with seemingly little effort to actually engage or understand the substance of the USSC's research --- is far more worrisome to me than whatever might be imperfect about how the USSC conducts and reports its research.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2023 2:02:02 PM
I have been a criminal defense lawyer more than 40 years in both state and federal courts. I have represented thousands of defendants in several states. In my experience, there is no question that for the same crime, and with the same criminal history, black folks, in general, get longer sentences than white folks.
Posted by: anon | Nov 15, 2023 4:06:26 PM
Doug,
My very next line began, “Seriously, though…”
I came up with questions that certainly must be answered before any claims of racial disparity can be made.
One must be able to ascertain why other minorities, or subsets of the same race, do better than the average African-American. I’ve asked at least two or three times and no one has even tried to respond.
As far as cynicism towards the research, one must have been asleep for the last generation to not get it. Academia has lost all credibility in the social sciences over the last 20 years and even the hard sciences for the last 5. Don’t blame us. Blame yourself. It’s your colleagues screaming pro-Hamas genocidal slogans. It’s your people allowing fake research into journals. Explain to me why this should be believed any more than the faulty information put out by the Branch Covidians in government. You don’t just get credibility. You earn it or lose it.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 15, 2023 7:39:21 PM
anon,
There is no such thing as the “same crime.”
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 15, 2023 7:40:06 PM
Doug,
One more point.
When the government admits to forwarding the premise of “equity,” it is motivated to lie about such things. One can easily make the argument it is even required to put out faulty research in the name of equity. After all, inequity is evil, right?
That’s the POV of all government research, making it inherently unreliable.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 15, 2023 7:45:15 PM
Master Tarls: what do you mean by "do better" in this particular research context? I have not responded to that point because the USSC is NOT here discussing overall crime rates or overall imprisonment rates for racial groups. The USSC report is about, as the name of the report explains, "Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing." The USSC is exploring, based on all the federal sentencing data it collects, how sentenced populations in the federal system are sentenced relative to each other, and I struggle to understand what you mean by "do better" in this context. Are you asserting that you know that, among the population of sentenced federal defendants sentenced for measurably comparable crimes and measurably comparable backgrounds, that "Asians, Jews, and even black immigrants do better than African-Americans"? If that is what you are saying, are you also saying we ought not worry nor care about if, controlling for all relevant measurable factors, there are racial and/or religious disparities in federal sentencing that cannot be readily explained by factors other than race or religion?
The more you comment, Master Tarls, the less I am sure you even understand what you are criticizing (and your clueless comment about the USSC having "paid academia" furthers that conclusion). It is truly a shame that that you (and Bill) now seem so close minded about data and research that you jump to criticize reports that it seems you do not fully understand (and that, I surmise, Bill does not ever bother to read). I won't try to stop you from pre-judging data and research, but I will keep encouraging everyone to actually make an effort to read and to try to understand data and research before closing their eyes and their minds.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 15, 2023 9:17:29 PM
Doug,
I thought I was pretty clear.
Other minorities do better economically, stay out of prison, get better grades in school and achieve educationally, etc., in our “systemically racist” society than African Americans. How is it that African immigrants make $10,000 more per year and those from Asia go to prison at lower rates than even whites?
Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I’m not saying we shouldn’t “care.” If it is not “race or religion,” though, it stands to reason that the solutions (if needed) will be different, correct? Are you really this obtuse? If the real problem is bastardy as a major part of African-American culture instead of the KKK just changing to black robes, we aren’t going to handle it the same way. Again, correct? It makes this report next to useless, right?
If you cannot answer these disparities, then you cannot answer the question this study is raising.
Who do you think these researchers at the USSC are? I’d love to hear it.
The problem is that I understand this research far more than you and your willingness to buy the narrative you want to hear. I get it, though. You have to keep your people in a job.
BTW, I used to do research for the government. Guess what? I didn’t work for the government. I worked in academia and was paid by the government. Also, those we worked with in the government were not police officers, firemen, etc. They were academics who took jobs with the government. Birds of a feather.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 15, 2023 10:52:52 PM
Tarls, you write, "There is no such thing as the “same crime.” Cute, but wrong. Of course there is such a thing as the "same crime."
Black man walks into bank and says "I have a gun, give me your money."
White man walks into bank and says, "I have a gun, give me your money."
Black man pushes woman onto subway tracks.
White man pushes woman onto subway tracks.
Black man shoots homeless woman on street.
White man shoots homeless woman on street.
etc., etc., etc.,,,
I say again that for the
Posted by: anon | Nov 16, 2023 4:26:22 AM
sorry, my daughter pushed "send."
I say again that in my experience, for the same crime, in general, the Black man gets a longer sentence that the White man.
Posted by: ;anon | Nov 16, 2023 7:39:30 AM
First thing, Doug, I would look at is geography. Are black defendants concentrated in "hang 'em high" jurisdictions? White murderers, by the way, are overrepresented in terms of those who have been executed, when you look at the murder rate across demographics.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 16, 2023 9:28:59 AM
I'd also look at the judges. By the way, do we know if judges look at this stuff?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 16, 2023 9:36:04 AM
https://hotair.com/headlines/2023/11/15/mom-of-virginia-boy-who-shot-teacher-gets-21-months-in-prison-n592788
Compare and contrast her with Hunter.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 16, 2023 9:50:51 AM
federalist: the USSC has done multiple reports focused on geographical differences and all sort of other factors because of its mandate from Congress to advance policies and practices for "avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct." 28 USC 991(b)(1)(B). You can find just some of this copious past research here: https://www.ussc.gov/research/topical-index-publications. One of the main points of the SRA of 1984 was to reduce sentencing differences between what might be called "hang 'em high" and "slap on wrist" federal jurisdictions, which is among the reasons the USSC does so much research and analysis based on its data collections.
Have you reviewed any of these materials closely to provide context for this latest USSC research report? I am still struggling to understand whether you (and Tarls and Bill) are asserting that we ought not be doing this research looking at federal sentencing outcomes at all or that this research should be done another way. I think there is great virtue in the USSC doing a lot of sentencing research and also lots of non-governmental actors doing lots of research on these important matters. No research is perfect, and more helps us better understand pros and cons of collected data and methods to analyze the data. But I still have a nagging sense that you (and Tarls and Bill) have taken very little time to even try to read and understand this latest USSC report before attacking it in all sort of curious and even contradictory ways.
Master Tarls: so when you say "do better" here, you mean "do better economically, stay out of prison, get better grades in school and achieve educationally, etc." How does that version of "do better" have direct relevance to a study looking only at "Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing." This report is not seeking to report data or address who does better economically or commits fewer crimes or gets better grades, it is about who gets sentenced and the outcomes in federal court after persons have been convicted of federal crimes using the factors the federal sentencing system deems relevant. And this report is not at all "useless," it tells us something about federal sentencing outcomes over five years and the USSC readily notes limits on existing data and our ability to analyze complicated aspects of hundreds of thousands of individuals sentenced in federal courts over the study period.
Critically, this report is not in any way seeking to speak to the "real problem," it just presents data and analyzes it (even better than similar reports by the USSC in 2006 and 2012 and 2017 and 2019.) This report is not seeking to present any "solutions" --- though I know Bill Otis has often called for a return to a mandatory system of federal sentencing guidelines based in part on this kind of disparity data from the USSC --- it is just looking to report and analyze data based on existing federal sentencing datasets. Are you even familiar with the USSC data? Do you claim bias in how the data is collected or just in how it is analyzed? Do you know if the religion of those sentenced is captured in the data? Do you think it should be? How about the race and religion of the sentencing judge? Can you be constructive in any way or is pre-judging and attacking the work of others all that you care to do?
It is ever more clear, Master Tarls, that your mind is so closed as to research and researchers --- after all, most researchers went to some (lefty?) school, rather then just served as "police officers, firemen" --- that you will reject any and all presentations of data and research that does not fit your narrative. That you attack research without reading it carefully or making any real effort to understand what it represents or seeks to do yet again shows through. That you get so much wrong in the way you attack this USSC report and the past CCJ report, and seemingly have no real interest in trying even to understand what you are talking about, reinforces my sense that you just like to complain and have little interest in being constructive. So be it.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 16, 2023 10:54:11 AM
federalist: do you consider Deja Taylor's sentence too long, too short, just right? Do you think her conviction violates the Second Amendment?
And, staying on-point with this post, would you consider Deja Taylor and Hunter Biden "defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct"? Do you think race or gender (or other factors) in part account for Deja Taylor's treatment? Hunter Biden's?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 16, 2023 10:59:46 AM
Deja Taylor's sentence, I think, is based on the serious injuries that arguably flowed from her conduct.
I don't know Ms. Taylor's criminal history, and the case did involve a serious injury. I don't think race is the issue here. I think her case highlights just how bad the Hunter lenience is. RE: Second Amendment, I am no longer sure.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 16, 2023 11:46:48 AM
Speaking of crime, punishment and race, here's Ann Coulter's take on the Central Park Jogger case:
https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2023/11/15/central-park-rape-the-secret-files-n2631257
Posted by: federalist | Nov 16, 2023 11:47:44 AM
After 30 years in the trenches in three different states, I fully agree with anon's comments that for the same crime and same criminal history, a black man gets a longer sentence than a white man.
Posted by: public defender 23 | Nov 17, 2023 1:06:17 AM
public defender, how do you account for the fact that urban jurisdictions are often very lenient . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Nov 17, 2023 9:36:45 AM