Racial Bias

[Gulo Blue]

probably cause... reasons

But just reasons involving individuals. Certainly nothing that impacts the entre system.

 

[Spartanmack]

it's probably racism and has nothing to do with prior criminal history which this study does not include in it's multivariate regression. (/s)

I wonder how they define "similarly situated" if they're not including criminal history - seems like that would be something you'd want to include, especially considering other studies have shown virtually all of the racial discrepancy in arrest and conviction rates are explained by crime rates and discrepancies in sentencing are explained by prior criminal history and the relative severity of the crimes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's probably racism and has nothing to do with prior criminal history which this study does not include in it's multivariate regression. (/s)

I wonder how they define "similarly situated" if they're not including criminal history - seems like that would be something you'd want to include, especially considering other studies have shown virtually all of the racial discrepancy in arrest and conviction rates are explained by crime rates and discrepancies in sentencing are explained by prior criminal history and the relative severity of the crimes.

"Also, the Commission has collected data about an additional variable - violence in an offender's criminal history - that the Commission had previously noted was missing from its analysis but that might help explain some of the differences in sentencing noted in its work."
"Violence in an offender's criminal history does not appear to account for any of the demographic differences in sentencing. Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders, accounting for violence in an offender's past in fiscal year 2016, the only year for which such data is available. This figure is almost the same as the 20.7 percent difference without accounting for past violence. Thus, violence in an offender's criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed to any extent beyond its contribution to the offender's criminal history score determined under the sentencing guidelines."

 

[Gulo Blue]

considering other studies have shown

You have a link for this?

It's wild to even think they might have missed this point in this study, but if you were primed to make this error by other compelling studies, that might help explain why your head jumped to the idea that criminal history effects might be missed in a study by the US Sentencing Commission.

 

[Spartanmack]

"Also, the Commission has collected data about an additional variable - violence in an offender's criminal history - that the Commission had previously noted was missing from its analysis but that might help explain some of the differences in sentencing noted in its work."
"Violence in an offender's criminal history does not appear to account for any of the demographic differences in sentencing. Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders, accounting for violence in an offender's past in fiscal year 2016, the only year for which such data is available. This figure is almost the same as the 20.7 percent difference without accounting for past violence. Thus, violence in an offender's criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed to any extent beyond its contribution to the offender's criminal history score determined under the sentencing guidelines."

I read that before I made my post. They're comparing black and white offenders with a violent crime conviction and black and white offenders without a violent crime convictions. There's more to criminal history than whether or not a person has committed a violent crime. Prior criminal history explains virtually all of the sentencing discrepancy.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I read that before I made my post. They're comparing black and white offenders with a violent crime conviction and black and white offenders without a violent crime convictions. There's more to criminal history than whether or not a person has committed a violent crime. Prior criminal history explains virtually all of the sentencing discrepancy.

When you read that, it should have triggered a warning bell in your head. Like if someone said weathermen don't consider temperature when they calculate the probability of snow. Even if you think you read that, you should be skeptical of that being the case. A government commission, publishing every few years, not taking criminal history into account?

Sentencing guidelines include criminal history. When you control for guidelines, which they did before this study, you control for history. Now, they're added an additional violent-vs-nonviolent element of analysis to see if it changes anything. It does not.

 

[Spartanmack]

You have a link for this?

It's wild to even think they might have missed this point in this study, but if you were primed to make this error by other compelling studies, that might help explain why your head jumped to the idea that criminal history effects might be missed in a study by the US Sentencing Commission.

Is it wild to think that? All you have to do is read the methodology section of the study where they list the independent variables to see that criminal history isn't one of them.

Is it wild to think evidence that disproves the prevailing narrative would be excluded from a study? Are the people who perform studies infallible and impervious to political biases, particularly the US Sentencing Commission?

From Heather MacDonald's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:

"...A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country?s 75 largest urban areas found 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.

I guess after 1994, the justice department became a lot more racist.

She testified before congress again in 2019 re: systemic racism in policing.... Here's an 2020 op-ed in the WSJ where she makes similar comments about police and the criminal justice system.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is it wild to think that? All you have to do is read the methodology section of the study where they list the independent variables to see that criminal history isn't one of them.

Is it wild to think evidence that disproves the prevailing narrative would be excluded from a study? Are the people who perform studies infallible and impervious to political biases, particularly the US Sentencing Commission?

From Heather MacDonald's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:

I guess after 1994, the justice department became a lot more racist.

It is wild to think that. Even more wild to double down after it's been explained.

I'm not sure about the line about some 1994 testimony; there's not enough there to figure out what exactly is included/not included there.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sentencing guidelines include criminal history. When you control for guidelines, which they did before this study, you control for history. Now, they're added an additional violent-vs-nonviolent element of analysis to see if it changes anything. It does not.

When you read that, it should have triggered a warning bell in your head. Like if someone said weathermen don't consider temperature when they calculate the probability of snow. Even if you think you read that, you should be skeptical of that being the case.

The study did NOT control for all sentencing guidelines - only the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range. It's right here from page 31 of the study:

The presumptive sentence, which is the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range that applies in a case (i.e., the minimum sentence, in months, to which the offender was subject under the sentencing guidelines, taking into account all guideline, statutory, and mandatory minimum provisions);56

Comparing sentences to the minimum sentence per the sentencing guidelines does not control for prior criminal history. It's not the same thing.

 

[Spartanmack]

It is wild to think that. Even more wild to double down after it's been explained.

I'm not sure about the line about some 1994 testimony; there's not enough there to figure out what exactly is included/not included there.

this didn't age well.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Wow. You are hard wired to believe anything that challenges your world view was written by idiots. You will bend over backwards trying to twist something obvious into something absurd.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Go down 3 more bullets from the one you quoted:

Whether the court determined that a sentence outside the
applicable sentencing guideline range was warranted;59

 

[Gulo Blue]

United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Guidelines basics
The Guidelines determine sentences based primarily on two factors:

1. the conduct associated with the offense (the offense conduct, which produces the offense level)
2. the defendant's criminal history (the criminal history category)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines#Guidelines_basics

 

[Spartanmack]

Go down 3 more bullets from the one you quoted:

saw that, don't see how that accounts for criminal history.

 

[Spartanmack]

United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Guidelines basics
The Guidelines determine sentences based primarily on two factors:

1. the conduct associated with the offense (the offense conduct, which produces the offense level)
2. the defendant's criminal history (the criminal history category)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines#Guidelines_basics

we can all read. This doesn't change that fact that the study doesn't account for prior criminal history, and when you do, you see that the sentencing discrepancy is explained. If crime rates account for the discrepency in arrest rates, why is this so hard to believe? Oh, you probably don't think crime rates explain the difference in arrest rates.

 

[Spartanmack]

Wow. You are hard wired to believe anything that challenges your world view was written by idiots. You will bend over backwards trying to twist something obvious into something absurd.

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.

 

[Gulo Blue]

we can all read. This doesn't change that fact that the study doesn't account for prior criminal history, and when you do, you see that the sentencing discrepancy is explained. If crime rates account for the discrepency in arrest rates, why is this so hard to believe? Oh, you probably don't think crime rates explain the difference in arrest rates.

Impressive. Astounding. With talent like this, you will never learn of a fact that causes you the slightest discomfort. Your feelings are well protected.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Guidelines is mentioned twice in the list of factors, once as a minimum, once as a range. Both mentions included the word 'applicable'. I post something that says guidelines are primarily based on 2 things, and one of those things is criminal history, and you clarify that we all can read...then turn around and say criminal history is not accounted for.

Are you playing a game of how wrong you can be without admitting it?

 

[Spartanmack]

Impressive. Astounding. With talent like this, you will never learn of a fact that causes you the slightest discomfort. Your feelings are well protected.

I'm not the one struggling to understand the facts. My feelings have nothing to do with this - not sure the same could be said by you.

 

[Spartanmack]

Guidelines is mentioned twice in the list of factors, once as a minimum, once as a range. Both mentions included the word 'applicable'. I post something that says guidelines are primarily based on 2 things, and one of those things is criminal history, and you clarify that we all can read...then turn around and say criminal history is not accounted for.

Are you playing a game of how wrong you can be without admitting it?

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.