« Rounding up a few reactions to new federal sentencing guidelines going into effect | Main | "Does type of counsel matter? A Comparison of outcomes in cases involving retained- and assigned counsel" »
November 2, 2023
The Sentencing Project releases latest report on racial disparities, “One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing”
As noted in this post last month, The Sentencing Project has announced that it is "producing a series of four reports examining both the narrowing and persistence of racial injustice in the criminal legal system, as well as highlighting promising reforms." Today, The Sentencing Project released this latest report in this series, the second I believe, titled “One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing.” Here is part of the report's executive summary:
As noted in the first installment of this One in Five series, scholars have declared a “generational shift” in the lifetime likelihood of imprisonment for Black men, from a staggering one in three for those born in 1981 to a still troubling one in five for Black men born in 2001....
This report interrogates the large footprint of policing — particularly of Black Americans— as, in part, a failed response to racial disparities in serious crimes. The wide net that police cast across people of color is at odds with advancing safety because excessive police contact often fails to intercept serious criminal activity and diminishes the perceived legitimacy of law enforcement. Excessive policing also distracts policymakers from making investments to promote community safety without the harms of policing and incarceration. In addition, the large footprint of policing gets in the way of, as the National Academies of Sciences has called for, needed “durable investments in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods that match the persistent and longstanding nature of institutional disinvestment that such neighborhoods have endured over many years.”...
Ending racial inequity in the criminal legal system requires both effectively tackling disparities in serious criminal behavior and eliminating excessive police contact. The subsequent installments of this One in Five series will examine additional drivers of disparity from within the criminal legal system and highlight promising reforms from dozens of jurisdictions around the country.
Prior recent related post:
November 2, 2023 at 10:37 AM | Permalink
Comments
Here's a racial disparity that Doug will never talk about--the treatment of Jamaal Bowman vs. J6.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 2, 2023 10:55:26 AM
Happy to discuss, federalist, but first I need to understand the basis for your feelings. First, what is the "disparity" you see? The vast majority of J6 rioters were (a) never prosecuted or (b) subject only to misdemeanor charges like Rep. Bowman if they were not involved in violent behavior. Do you have in mind examples of J6 persons involved in directly comparable behavior who were treated more harshly? Can you detail those comparable cases, if you do?
Second, assuming you have examples of comparable J6 persons treated more harshly, what is your basis for saying that an asserted disparity here is a "racial" disparity rather than a "privilege" disparity and/or "political" disparity? When, eg, former Judge Jack Camp got a sweetheart deal for drug dealing from the feds, that always struck me as a privilege/politics story, not a race story. Same goes when cops and prosecutors and other public officials (or children of public officials) get treated less harshly than comparable private citizens.
I am not (yet) questioning whatever racialized feelings you have about these matters, but if you want to discuss these matters more, perhaps seek to articulate your accounting of "racial disparity" here with a bit more clarity.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 2, 2023 11:18:38 AM
As long as there are racial disparities in committing crime, there should be and will be racial disparities in arrest and sentencing figures.
This is so obvious and so non-controversial that pretending it's some kind of scandal is just complete baloney.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2023 1:52:41 PM
It’s always about race. That’s why defense attorneys ❤️ Hamas terrorists (I repeat myself).
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 2, 2023 3:14:13 PM
Doug,
Bowman literally obstructed Democracy, as the Dems like to put it. He cannot be compared to people walking around aimlessly on January 6. I don’t know any direct cases, but I’m sure anyone on January 6 who willfully attempted to interfere with the vote by blocking hallways, interfering with free movement, etc., were charged harshly. That said, you are likely correct that it is not “race.” It’s about what political side Bowman is on.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Nov 2, 2023 3:23:19 PM
As I see it, Master Tarls, Bowman should be thrown out of Congress because I hold elected officials to a much higher standard than the dumb individuals who participated in the Jan 6 riot. (To this day, I blame the Dems for lowering standards by failing to pitch Bill Clinton for lying under oath after having an affair with an intern. But, by my standards, we'd be throwing out a whole lot of government officials on both sides of the aisle.)
I wonder if federalist will try to provide any support for his assertion of racial disparity, as now it seems like he is the one who does not want to talk about it.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 2, 2023 4:41:06 PM
The worst crime-related racial disparity is the horrifically high rate at which Black Americans are homicide victims.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 3, 2023 9:51:34 PM
William Jockusch --
Correct.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 5, 2023 7:40:09 AM
Doug, gotcha. Over and over your posts talk about racial disparities etc. etc. Thus the status issue and politicization issue is somewhat irrelevant to the sort of analysis you've been championing here.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 6, 2023 11:36:37 AM
Please cite some examples of what you mean, federalist, of when I discuss "racial disparities" that do not reflect disparity or race. I asked if you could explain the "disparity" you claim see -- you have not; then I asked you to explain why you think any claimed disparity reflects race -- you have not.
Please try again to explain what you mean when you assert a "racial disparity that Doug will never talk about -- the treatment of Jamaal Bowman vs. J6." Once you do that, perhaps you can cite to other posts which you think "talk about racial disparities etc. etc." in a similar way. Or we can just attribute another federalist comment, yet again, to feelings with no supportive substance.
If your only point, federalist, is just that a lot of what sometimes gets called "racial disparities" by various authors/advocates often reflect a lot of other legal/social/political factors, I would not disagree. But I did not take your point to be that lots of claimed "racial disparity" may reflect additional factors. I took you to be saying that there is "racial disparity ... [in] the treatment of Jamaal Bowman vs. J6." Ergo my request that you explain what you saw as a disparity and what you saw as racial.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 6, 2023 1:46:44 PM
Doug, this is painful. Racial disparity, in and of itself, isn't a problem--so for example does ANYONE believe that the NBA isn't a meritocracy?
With respect to specific examples, you talked about how a judge using race-conscious sentencing was commendable. But I pointed out that "remedying" disparate impact can create "disparate treatment" issues. As for Bownman, the DOJ's failure to charge creates obvious disparate impact issues. I am just pointing that out. Saying that it's status doesn't really address the point.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 6, 2023 3:29:38 PM
federalist, you just make stuff up based on your feelings --- when did I say "a judge using race-conscious sentencing was commendable"? I assume you are misrepresenting our discussion of the decision by a California judge to dismiss gang charges against four men under the California Racial Justice Act. The CRJA is obviously about "racial" matters and the ruling in that case turned on a judge citing to a decade of data that he said showed “significant statistical disparity.” Talking about "racial disparity" in the context of that ruling makes perfect sense, as anyone paying attention can point to the alleged disparity and its racial dimension. Do you disagree that the CRJA ruling obviously calls for discussing "racial disparities"?
In contrast, as for Bowman, it is hard to see disparity, nor have I seen any public (or courtroom) claims of "racial disparity." Has the DOJ prosecuted anyone in the J6 cases who was already subject to a local conviction? Wouldn't a double prosecution/conviction (when others are subject only to a single conviction) be more of a "disparity"? Has anyone been asserting that "racial" matters account for these outcomes?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 6, 2023 5:24:55 PM
Doug, it sure sounded like you agreed with what the judge was doing. Do you?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2023 9:30:59 AM
I "agree" that state judges have an obligation to seek to faithfully apply state laws. So I do agree with any California judge's effort to comply with the requirements of the California Racial Justice Act. I have not had a chance to study the particular mandates of the CRJA or the particular data underlying the dismissals discussed in a prior post, so it is hard for me to weigh in with specificity on legal ruling I have not had a chance to carefully review. Also, I am unaware if prosecutors or others have made any arguments that application of the CJRA in that case raised constitutional concerns.
Do you have any actual legal basis to contest what the judge did in applying the CJRA, federalist, or are we again just discussing your feelings? And, more to the point of this thread, do you have any reason to question my blog talking about racial disparity there when a California case is specifically about racial disparity and the law's response thereto? I know you have all sorts of feelings about all sorts of stuff, but I thought your complaint here was about when/how this blog talks about racial disparity.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 7, 2023 9:51:19 AM
Yes. There is a huge body of law regarding disparate impact (which is all a "disparity" shows). Consciously trying to race-norm punishments is unconstitutional--it's disparate treatment. Race-based lenience is a problem--obviously.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2023 10:35:36 AM
The CRJA seeks to remedy legislatively race-based sentencing difference, as SCOTUS indicated legislatures could and should in McKlesky. Have you reviewed the CRJA and the data behind the ruling we are discussing? As always, I’d welcome a rigorous analysis of these issues, but your feelings are not rigorous.
And, returning to the main point, you plainly have no sound basis for complaining about talk about racial disparity in the context of a court ruling on that very topic. Looks like you “gotcha” yourself, yet again.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 7, 2023 11:20:55 AM
Racial disparity isn't a synonym for illegal racial discrimination. See, e.g., Washington v. Davis. And when you adopt race-conscious remedies, you run the risk of disparate treatment which generally constitutes illegal discrimination. See, e.g., Adarand. This is hornbook law.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2023 1:22:51 PM
You are the one who started this silliness, federalist, complaining about "a racial disparity that Doug will never talk about--the treatment of Jamaal Bowman vs. J6." I followed up by asking what disparity you see and why you think that any disparity should be discussed as "a racial disparity." You have not soundly addressed those questions, but then spoke of "[my] posts [that] talk about racial disparities etc. etc." I asked about what posts you mean, and you then could only misrepresent one post about one California ruling applying the CRJA. I then asked you if you reviewed the CRJA and the data behind the ruling you mischaracterized (as well as whether you know of any constitutional challenges to the law). Have you reviewed the ruling and the underlying data? I assume the answer is no, as that is yet another question you are dodging in this thread.
If you write up a serious and rigorous discussion of the CRJA and rulings thereunder, I will be eager to see what you have to say. That engagement will necessarily involve, of course, talking about racial disparities. And, that we are back to discussing your vague feelings rather than an actual legal ruling, and especially since you have entirely dropped any attempt to talk about "racial disparity [in] the treatment of Jamaal Bowman vs. J6," it is clear that this whole thread has become a federalist feelings self-"gotcha."
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 7, 2023 1:46:36 PM
J6 defendants, mostly white, have book thrown at them. Black Congressman gets over.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 7, 2023 5:35:59 PM
Are you aware, federalist, of any J6 defendant subject to two prosecutions? Do you know what number/percentage of J6 rioters avoided prosecution and/or were prosecuted only on misdemeanor charges? Have you looked at any of this data (or the data in the California case) before you started complaining about discussions of "racial disparity"? Or, as it seems, is this just yet another example of you expressing your feelings rather than doing any rigorous analysis?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 7, 2023 10:17:22 PM
j6 defendants who walked around the Capitol, some of whom were waved in by cops, got prosecuted. Bowman actively interfered with a vote got nothing. We all know that this is a problem.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 8, 2023 9:34:07 AM
Ah, more federalist feeling: "We all know that this is a problem." Please feel free to write up this "problem" with some rigor as it relates to "racial disparity" if you are still upset we are not talking about racial disparity to your satisfaction. You have, tellingly, not discussed whether you have actually reviewed the CRJA and rulings thereunder, so I surmise you do not want to actually talk about real legal issues surrounding racial disparity.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 8, 2023 10:17:34 AM
