« Expanded academic and caselaw resorces from the Plea Bargaining Institute | Main | Intriguing statement from two Justices after cert denial concerning Takings Clause and police destruction of private property »
November 25, 2024
"Sentencing Insurrection"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Kevin Lapp recently posted to SSRN. Here is its abstract:
On January 6, 2021, an estimated two thousand people broke police lines and breached the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Over one thousand people have been charged with various crimes for their actions that day, from misdemeanor trespassing charges to felony assault with a weapon and seditious conspiracy. Relying on publicly available sources, this article present results from an analysis of the first 514 people to have been sentenced in federal court for crimes committed on January 6. The result is a snapshot of the insurrectionists, the charges they faced, and the punishments federal judges imposed on them.
On demographics, the data suggests that the lawbreaking and political violence of January 6 was not just the work of the usual criminal suspects, so-called right-wing extremists, or residents of former President Trump strongholds. Rather, it was committed by a cohort that more closely resembles mainstream White America. On punishment, the aggregate results are notable for their leniency. The cases were much more likely to result in a conviction for only a misdemeanor than typical federal criminal cases. Prison sentences were imposed much less frequently than usual for federal criminal defendants, and were much shorter in length.
The article also explores the relationships between defendant age and sex, the sentences that judges imposed, and the sex and political party of the President who nominated the sentencing judge. Several intriguing findings raise questions about scholarship on the politics of sentencing. It also examines where individual judges varied in the imposition of incarceration, sometimes in surprising ways, even accounting for the severity of the offense of conviction.
Finally, the article posits three alternative narratives supported by the data. One is a story of preserving political stability and the rule of law through prosecution, threatened by lenient sentencing. Another is judicial corrective to prosecutorial overreach. A third centers the role of politics, demographics, and bias in the administration of criminal justice.
November 25, 2024 at 08:42 AM | Permalink
Comments
"On January 6, 2021, an estimated two thousand people broke police lines and breached the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election results."
Drivel. First of all, how many of these thousands were waved in by the cops? Second, how many wanted to use illegal means to prevent the certification? (Obviously, most wouldn't have harmed a fly and simply wanted their feelings to be known.)
That quote is drivel.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 25, 2024 12:48:49 PM
"...the article posits three alternative narratives supported by the data. One is a story of preserving political stability and the rule of law through prosecution, threatened by lenient sentencing. Another is judicial corrective to prosecutorial overreach. A third centers the role of politics, demographics, and bias in the administration of criminal justice."
How odd to be reaching out to paint in the hues of Grand Themes while walking past what should principally control sentencing, to wit, the defendant's specific behavior, his motivation and attitude, and his criminal record before then. On the other hand, sticking with specifics doesn't serve the author's actual goal, which is to make the whole deal about race and class.
Well, at least academia remains stuck in the same bubble it's been in for decades.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 27, 2024 11:58:37 AM
I am immediately mistrustful when I see the paper describe the defendants as "insurrectionists". That's arguable for some defendants. But others were not violent at any point. Furthermore, no J6 defendant used a firearm at the capitol (though a few were carrying). It is difficult to square that with the label "insurrectionists". Had they used the word "rioters", that would have made more sense.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 28, 2024 11:48:36 PM
I need to correct myself. Google reveals that one defendant has been charged with firing a weapon, though not with firing it at anyone. I still think this fits the word "riot" better than "insurrection". Contrast genuine insurrections such as the Civil War, the Whiskey Rebellion, or Nat Turner's Rebellion.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Nov 28, 2024 11:57:13 PM
"On demographics, the data suggests that the lawbreaking and political violence of January 6 was not just the work of the usual criminal suspects, so-called right-wing extremists, or residents of former President Trump strongholds. Rather, it was committed by a cohort that more closely resembles mainstream White America. On punishment, the aggregate results are notable for their leniency. The cases were much more likely to result in a conviction for only a misdemeanor than typical federal criminal cases. Prison sentences were imposed much less frequently than usual for federal criminal defendants, and were much shorter in length."
So much ridiculousness in that paragraph alone. And there is this gem: "The cases were much more likely to result in a conviction for only a misdemeanor than typical federal criminal cases," w/o any hunting as to why the result might be so.
Posted by: Steven Erickson | Nov 29, 2024 9:57:48 AM
