Skip to Content
0 Votes

Changes for page Sentencing Disparities

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/04/24 02:46
From version 15.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/24 02:46
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 13.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/24 02:34
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
13 13  
14 14  The most recent report we have on sentencing disparities is Demographic differences in Federal Sentencing Report{{footnote}}Reeves, C., et al. (2023). //Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing//. United States Sentencing Commission. Available at: [[United States Sentencing Commission>>https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2023/20231114_Demographic-Differences.pdf]]{{/footnote}} from 2023. To begin with, the many articles making this claim are using old data, and in all those datasets it should be noted that females of all races received lower sentences than White males. In the old reports, the analysis variables did not account for many things,
15 15  
16 -[[~[~[image:nvidia_overlay_30gjveb1ea.png~|~|alt="image" data-xwiki-image-style="thumbnail-clickable" width="200"~]~]>>/images/sentencing/nvidia_overlay_8ne8or9mbt.png]]
16 +[[~[~[image:nvidia_overlay_aq2nraxkpj.png~|~|alt="image" data-xwiki-image-style="thumbnail-clickable" width="200"~]~]>>/images/sentencing/nvidia_overlay_8ne8or9mbt.png]]
17 17  
18 18  the updated report, which accounts for most things, only shows a 4% longer sentence for black males compared to White males, Hispanics are around 1% longer, and other males are actually 2% shorter. For longer periods of incarceration, it actually shows a 1% shorter sentence length for even black males. From the report in question:
19 19  
... ... @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
29 29  
30 30  1. **Wealth**:
31 31  
32 -1.
32 +1.
33 33  1*. Wealthier defendants are more likely to afford experienced private attorneys who negotiate better plea deals, argue for leniency, and secure reduced sentences.
34 34  1*. Public defenders are far worse than private counsel. The disparities in sentencing are clearly evident when you look at the Bureau of Justice’s report on counsel {{footnote}}Department of Justice Report [[Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases>>https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com]]{{/footnote}} which also shows that Whites are around 10% more likely to retain private counsel. {{footnote}}Department of Justice Report [[Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases>>https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com]]{{/footnote}}
35 35  
... ... @@ -40,65 +40,88 @@
40 40  
41 41  == Post-Arrest Behavior and Rehabilitation Efforts ==
42 42  
43 -1. Case Study: Drug Court Outcomes
44 -* Blacks have been shown to have lower rates of completion in drug court.{{footnote reference="3"}}Roman, J., et al. “Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimates, Final Report.” US Department of Justice, 2003. [[PDF>>https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/201229.pdf]]{{/footnote}}
45 -* Whites have lower rates of recidivism than non-Black minorities, and Blacks have higher recidivism rates than non-Black minorities.{{footnote reference="4"}}Schiff, M., & Terry, C. (1997). “Predicting graduation from Broward County’s dedicated drug treatment court.” *Justice System Journal*, 19, 291–310. [[Sci-Hub>>https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1997.10871265]]{{/footnote}}
43 +1. **Case Study: Drug Court Outcomes**:
46 46  
47 -2. Voluntary Actions Influence Sentencing
48 -* Judges heavily weigh voluntary rehabilitation efforts (e.g., attending rehab, writing sincere apologies, and demonstrating compliance).{{footnote reference="5"}}Criminal-Justice.iResearchNet. “Factors Influencing Sentencing Decisions.” [[Link>>https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminal-justice-process/sentencing-and-punishment/factors-influencing-sentencing-decisions]]{{/footnote}}
49 -* Defendants who actively participate in drug testing, attend counseling, and show respect in court receive lighter sentences.
45 +1.
46 +1*. Blacks have been shown to have lower rates of completion in drug court.{{footnote}}Roman, J., et al. “Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimates, Final Report.” US Department of Justice, 2003. [[Department of Justice>>https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/201229.pdf]]{{/footnote}}
47 +1*. Whites have lower rates of recidivism than non-Black minorities, and Blacks have higher recidivism rates than non-Black minorities {{footnote}}Schiff, M., & Terry, C. (1997). “Predicting graduation from Broward County’s dedicated drug treatment court.” //Justice System Journal//, 19, 291–292, 310. Accessible via [[Sci-Hub>>https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1997.10871265]].{{/footnote}}
48 +1. **Voluntary Actions Influence Sentencing**:
50 50  
50 +1.
51 +1*. Judges heavily weigh voluntary rehabilitation efforts (e.g., attending rehab, writing sincere apologies, and demonstrating compliance).{{footnote}}Criminal Justice Researchinet article and sources available at [[criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com>>https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminal-justice-process/sentencing-and-punishment/factors-influencing-sentencing-decisions/?utm_source=chatgpt.com]]{{/footnote}}
52 +1*. Defendants who actively participate in drug testing, attend counseling, and show respect in court receive lighter sentences.
53 +1. **Conclusion**:
54 +
55 +1.
56 +1*. Sentencing outcomes are shaped by individual behavior post-arrest. Racial disparities arise not from systemic racism but from differences in voluntary actions and opportunities.
57 +
51 51  ----
52 52  
53 -=== Probation Violation Rates and Non-Compliance ===
60 +=== **3. Probation Violation Rates and Non-Compliance** ===
54 54  
55 -1. Revocation Rates
56 -* In Iowa, Black probationers had a **32 %** revocation rate, compared to **18 %** for Whites.{{footnote reference="6"}}Jannetta, J., et al. (2014). “Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation.” [[Urban Institute>>https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22746/413174-Examining-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Probation-Revocation.PDF]]{{/footnote}}
57 -* Non-compliance with probation terms (e.g., missed meetings or technical violations) heavily influences revocation.
62 +1. **Revocation Rates**:
58 58  
59 -2. Factors Influencing Violations
60 -* Probationers with limited resources often struggle to meet probation requirements (e.g., paying fees or attending mandated appointments).
64 +1.
65 +1*. Black probationers have significantly higher revocation rates than White probationers:
66 +1**. In Iowa, Black probationers had a **32% revocation rate**, compared to **18% for Whites**{{footnote}}Jannetta, J., et al. (2014) Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation[[Summary Findings and Implications from a Multisite Study>>https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22746/413174-Examining-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Probation-Revocation.PDF]]{{/footnote}}
67 +1*. Non-compliance with probation terms (e.g., missed meetings or technical violations) heavily influences revocation.
68 +1. **Factors Influencing Violations**:
61 61  
70 +1.
71 +1*. Probationers with limited resources often struggle to meet probation requirements (e.g., paying fees or attending mandated appointments).
72 +1. **Conclusion**:
73 +
74 +1.
75 +1*. Disparities in probation outcomes are more likely tied to behavioral differences and structural barriers than racial bias within the system.
76 +
62 62  ----
63 63  
64 64  == Gender Disparities in Sentencing ==
65 65  
66 -1. Key Findings
67 -* Women receive shorter sentences than men for equivalent offenses:
68 -** Female offenders’ sentences are, on average, **28–30 %** shorter across racial groups.{{footnote reference="7"}}Department of Justice. *Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases*. Bureau of Justice Statistics. [[PDF>>https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com]]{{/footnote}}
69 -** Judges view women as less culpable and more rehabilitative, prioritizing family or caregiving roles over punishment.
81 +1. **Key Findings**:
70 70  
71 -2. Conclusion
72 -* The justice system shows leniency based on perceived societal roles. This reveals that disparities in sentencing can reflect broader biases unrelated to systemic racism.
83 +1.
84 +1*. Women receive shorter sentences than men for equivalent offenses:
85 +1**. Female offenders’ sentences are, on average, **28-30% shorter** across racial groups.{{footnote}}Department of Justice Report [[Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases>>https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com]]{{/footnote}}
86 +1*. Judges view women as less culpable and more rehabilitative, prioritizing family or caregiving roles over punishment.
87 +1. **Conclusion**:
73 73  
89 +1.
90 +1*. The justice system shows leniency based on perceived societal roles. This reveals that disparities in sentencing are not always about race and can reflect broader biases unrelated to systemic racism.
91 +
74 74  ----
75 75  
76 -== Treatment Completion Rates ==
94 +== Treatment Completion Rates {{id name="treatment-completion-rates"/}} ==
77 77  
78 -1. Substance Abuse Treatment Completion
79 -* In this study, the authors explored disparities in outpatient treatment completion rates for minorities.{{footnote reference="8"}}Arndt, S., et al. “How the states stack up: Disparities in substance abuse outpatient treatment completion rates for minorities.” *Drug and Alcohol Dependence*. [[ScienceDirect>>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871613001105]]{{/footnote}}
96 +1. **Substance Abuse Treatment Completion**:
80 80  
98 +In this study{{footnote}}Arndt S, et al. ’How the states stack up: Disparities in substance abuse outpatient treatment completion rates for minorities[[Drug and Alcohol Dependence>>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871613001105]]{{/footnote}}[Arndt, 2013], the authors explored disparities in outpatient treatment completion rates.
99 +
100 +
81 81  ----
82 82  
83 -== Systemic Arguments Are Circular ==
103 +== **6. Systemic Arguments Are Circular** ==
84 84  
85 -1. Key Critique
86 -* Systemic racism narratives often rely on circular reasoning:
87 -** Higher rates of substance abuse, poverty, and criminal activity are attributed to systemic inequities.
88 -** These inequities are then blamed for harsher sentencing outcomes without addressing the behaviors that drive them.
105 +1. **Key Critique**:
89 89  
90 -2. Logical Flaws
91 -* This reasoning ignores how disparities can emerge naturally from socioeconomic differences, individual behavior, and judicial discretion without requiring systemic bias.
107 +1.
108 +1*. Systemic racism narratives often rely on circular reasoning:
109 +1**. Higher rates of substance abuse, poverty, and criminal activity are attributed to systemic inequities.
110 +1**. These inequities are then blamed for harsher sentencing outcomes without addressing the behaviors and choices that directly affect sentencing.
111 +1. **Logical Flaws**:
92 92  
113 +1.
114 +1*. This reasoning ignores how disparities can emerge naturally from socioeconomic differences, individual behavior, and judicial discretion without requiring systemic bias.
115 +
93 93  ----
94 94  
95 -== Conclusion ==
118 +== **Conclusion** {{id name="conclusion"/}} ==
96 96  
97 -Sentencing disparities are better explained by individual actions, socioeconomic realities, and procedural factors than by systemic racism. By addressing underlying issues—wealth gaps, rehabilitation access, and compliance barriers—the justice system can move toward truly equitable solutions.
120 +Sentencing disparities are better explained by individual actions, socioeconomic realities, and systemic constraints than by systemic racism. Wealth disparities, voluntary behavior, and program compliance play a much larger role in shaping outcomes. By addressing these underlying issues—rather than assuming racism as the primary cause—the justice system can move toward more effective and equitable solutions.
98 98  
122 +
99 99  ----
100 100  
101 -
102 102  1. **Data Sources**:
103 103  
104 104  {{putFootnotes/}}