Racial Bias

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not the one who is wrong - or the one that plays that game. The number of times "guidelines" is mentioned isn't a factor in whether prior criminal history is controlled for.

As for your Wikipedia article, 18 US Code 3553 says something a bit different - prior criminal history is #6 of 7 factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.

"Factors in the imposition of a sentence"

Which is not one of the independent variable we were talking about. Guidelines are two of the independent variables and they are based primarily on the conduct associated with the offense and the defendant's criminal history.

It's not like if you ignore the meaning of the words you read and write enough the clouds will open up and Trump will glide down his magic escalator to crown you press secretary.

 

[Spartanmack]

"Factors in the imposition of a sentence"

Which is not one of the independent variable we were talking about. Guidelines are two of the independent variables and they are based primarily on the conduct associated with the offense and the defendant's criminal history.

It's not like if you ignore the meaning of the words you read and write enough the clouds will open up and Trump will glide down his magic escalator to crown you press secretary.

LOL, you're getting more and more pathetic. Counting the number of times "guidelines" is mentioned didn't work, mention Trump to win the day!

Based on how they use those guidelines (only considering the low end, not the range and whether a crime merited a sentence outside the guideline range) doesn't account for criminal history.

It's pretty clear from the 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country's 75 largest urban areas that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to be sentenced to prison, however, due to their more extensive criminal histories and the gravity of their current offense.

Now, if that's the case, either there's something wrong with this study you so stubbornly cling to, or our system of justice has become more racist (or is it biased?) since 1994. Since arrest rate discrepancies are explained by crime rates you'd have to be pretty stubborn to believe that lawyers, judges and juries are racist if cops aren't.

Do you think it's possible that maybe the way they attempt to control for criminal history, if they even are trying to do that, isn't adequate? Do you think it's possible that there could be some kind of agenda at play here?

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong - maybe the number of times sentencing guidelines is mentioned in a study is proof that the justice system is racist...

 

[Gulo Blue]

LOL, you're getting more and more pathetic. Counting the number of times "guidelines" is mentioned didn't work, mention Trump to win the day!

Based on how they use those guidelines (only considering the low end, not the range and whether a crime merited a sentence outside the guideline range) doesn't account for criminal history.

It's pretty clear from the 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country's 75 largest urban areas that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to be sentenced to prison, however, due to their more extensive criminal histories and the gravity of their current offense.

Now, if that's the case, either there's something wrong with this study you so stubbornly cling to, or our system of justice has become more racist (or is it biased?) since 1994. Since arrest rate discrepancies are explained by crime rates you'd have to be pretty stubborn to believe that lawyers, judges and juries are racist if cops aren't.

Do you think it's possible that maybe the way they attempt to control for criminal history, if they even are trying to do that, isn't adequate? Do you think it's possible that there could be some kind of agenda at play here?

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong - maybe the number of times sentencing guidelines is mentioned in a study is proof that the justice system is racist...

The significance of the guidelines is that they involve assigning a number associated with criminal history, the way judges are supposed to, and they are used in this study to take criminal history into account.

You didn't mention a study. You quoted someone, who according to your link has a position with a think tank chaired by an investment fund manager.

 

[Spartanmack]

The significance of the guidelines is that they involve assigning a number associated with criminal history, the way judges are supposed to, and they are used in this study to take criminal history into account.

You didn't mention a study. You quoted someone, who according to your link has a position with a think tank chaired by an investment fund manager.

but the study doesn't use the full sentencing guidelines, they just use the bottom end of the range of possible sentences from the sentencing guideline. Then they consider whether a sentence outside the guidelines was issued by the court. That to me doesn't sound like it fully captures and controls for prior criminal history. And that very likely explains why it's not consistent with a Justice Department study, referenced by Heather MacDonald in her testimony before Congress, which found that when you actually consider criminal history, it along with the severity of the crime in question, explains the difference in sentencing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

but the study doesn't use the full sentencing guidelines, they just use the bottom end of the range of possible sentences from the sentencing guideline. Then they consider whether a sentence outside the guidelines was issued by the court. That to me doesn't sound like it fully captures and controls for prior criminal history. And that very likely explains why it's not consistent with a Justice Department study, referenced by Heather MacDonald in her testimony before Congress, which found that when you actually consider criminal history, it along with the severity of the crime in question, explains the difference in sentencing.

It sounds that way to you because you don't want to believe it. That's why I mentioned the 2nd guideline factor; the guideline range. The minimum + the range captures the whole thing. But you carry on about how you already saw that and understand everything and what does it matter how many times guidelines are mentioned. What better possible metric for considering the impact of criminal history on sentencing could there be than the one used to determine sentences in the first place? It's ideal.

 

[Spartanmack]

It sounds that way to you because you don't want to believe it. That's why I mentioned the 2nd guideline factor; the guideline range. The minimum + the range captures the whole thing. But you carry on about how you already saw that and understand everything and what does it matter how many times guidelines are mentioned. What better possible metric for considering the impact of criminal history on sentencing could there be than the one used to determine sentences in the first place? It's ideal.

you have it backwards - you're the one ignoring evidence because you don't want to believe that the justice system in America isn't racist. You can mention the second guideline factor all you want - it's not the guideline, it's whether a sentence was given outside the guideline range. But you carry on and on and on about this as if it does.

Again, the metric that would be better is the actual criminal history, which this study does not appear to capture. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but America isn't a racist country and there isn't institutional racism in our criminal justice system - the racial disparities in arrests, convictions and sentencing are all explained by differences in crime rates, criminal history and severity of crimes.

 

[Michchamp]

not true at all. I've already said I wouldn't be surprised if the omission was intentional. I'm also open to the possibility that they're as stubborn as you. By the way, you're the one twisting the obvious into the absurd by trying to pass off controlling for the minimum sentence as accounting for prior criminal history.

I'm not the one who is wrong - or the one that plays that game. The number of times "guidelines" is mentioned isn't a factor in whether prior criminal history is controlled for. Neither the "low end, minimum sentence" or whether a court determined a sentence "outside the guideline range" means the study controlled for prior criminal history.

LOL, you're getting more and more pathetic. Counting the number of times "guidelines" is mentioned didn't work, mention Trump to win the day!

Based on how they use those guidelines (only considering the low end, not the range and whether a crime merited a sentence outside the guideline range) doesn't account for criminal history.

It's pretty clear from the 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country's 75 largest urban areas that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to be sentenced to prison, however, due to their more extensive criminal histories and the gravity of their current offense.

Now, if that's the case, either there's something wrong with this study you so stubbornly cling to, or our system of justice has become more racist (or is it biased?) since 1994. Since arrest rate discrepancies are explained by crime rates you'd have to be pretty stubborn to believe that lawyers, judges and juries are racist if cops aren't.

Do you think it's possible that maybe the way they attempt to control for criminal history, if they even are trying to do that, isn't adequate? Do you think it's possible that there could be some kind of agenda at play here?

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong - maybe the number of times sentencing guidelines is mentioned in a study is proof that the justice system is racist...

these posts are all just piling a bunch of words on top of the truth to bury it because you don't like what it says... aka bullshitting

 

[Spartanmack]

these posts are all just piling a bunch of words on top of the truth to bury it because you don't like what it says... aka bullshitting

It's like you're holding up a mirror as you basically just summarized 7+ years of your posts on these boards.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You can mention the second guideline factor all you want - it's not the guideline, it's whether a sentence was given outside the guideline range. But you carry on and on and on about this as if it does.

Good stuff here. Right up there with your understanding of what an inflection point is.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're trying too hard.

I know better than to ask you to try just a little bit, but it would be nice.

 

[Spartanmack]

Good stuff here. Right up there with your understanding of what an inflection point is.

whoa, you're digging deep now. I guess when you don't have the facts on your side, what else can you do? Why admit you're wrong when you can simply resort to ad hominem - you can always count on your clown boy friend to pile on and make you feel like you won again.

 

[Spartanmack]

I know better than to ask you to try just a little bit, but it would be nice.

I've been trying for years, but you're simply too stubborn.

 

[Gulo Blue]

whoa, you're digging deep now. I guess when you don't have the facts on your side, what else can you do? Why admit you're wrong when you can simply resort to ad hominem - you can always count on your clown boy friend to pile on and make you feel like you won again.

There is no winning. That's not a thing that happens on a board like this.

 

[Spartanmack]

There is no winning. That's not a thing that happens on a board like this.

I agree with that but I'm surprised you see it that way.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I agree with that but I'm surprised you see it that way.

Really? You're the one declaring victory all the time, not me.

 

[Michchamp]

There is no winning. That's not a thing that happens on a board like this.

No. It does happen. You won.

I declare you the winner of teh thread

 

[Gulo Blue]

No. It does happen. You won.

I declare you the winner of teh thread

You just want it to stop.

 

[Spartanmack]

Really? You're the one declaring victory all the time, not me.

really, you're the one always resorting to ad hominem for the win, then you're buddy chimes in to confirm - see above.

 

[Gulo Blue]

really, you're the one always resorting to ad hominem for the win, then you're buddy chimes in to confirm - see above.

I have made it clear that posts directed towards you should be read as ad hominem. I don't think that's a win. That's a confession.

And this post highlighting that you think that's a win, is actually another ad hominem.

 

[Michchamp]

really, you're the one always resorting to ad hominem for the win, then you're buddy chimes in to confirm - see above.