Legalized judicial racism…

Don't worry, I don't blame you

But I was quickly reminded why I stepped away.

 

something like 'at. As my grandpa used to say, you can lead a horse to water, but they're still a dumb horse.

 

Judge Walker is a good man (and a Gator). It is difficult, but if you're willing to put the effort in, you can work hard to ensure that you're handing out racially unbiased sentences. How? You track the sentences you're handing out based on a number of characteristics, including race. And if you see a pattern emerging, you correct for it. It may prove humbling and it involves extra effort, but it is very much doable.

(When I say you and you're, I'm speaking generally.)

 

Just give up. You're out-classed.

 

You and Mutz are cute pals. I like how you stick together.

 

I stepped away a year ago.

Nothing to concoct. I provided definitions in those links I posted earlier. Read them or not, your choice, but they clearly demonstrate that some type of intent, knowing, awareness, or choice are not necessary conditions for someone to be biased. FTR, Oxford's definition doesn't mention anything about intent, knowing, or choice either.

 

Stepping away from this place is damn good for the soul, because being immersed in it, is categorically toxic to the soul.

...like stepping out into the sunlight after hiking deep under ground, in caves, and being immersed in swampy sludge deprived of sunlight for days st a time...

 

when you are plotting those data points, where should judges place and how do you suggest they account for women of all races including African American, receiving shorter sentences than white men for same crimes ? Would that go under the column as more racist or less racist ? How do you account for Asians committing far less crimes than their percentage of the population ? Should judges hand down longer sentences for lesser crimes for Asians so total sentencing time is more aligned with their % of population ?

 

You compare apples to apples and decide whether you're going to try and equalize sentences based on gender too.

How is that relevant when handing out a sentence to a person who has committed a crime?

 

Guess the way I wrote it was was somewhat of a conflation. What I meant to say was cherry picking data to stir up emotions is a pet peeve. How do you compare a felony assault that was pled down and the offender’s 3rd violent offense arrest to someone’s first arrest for felony assault? You can look at past data and make the argument “ here is an example of 2 felony assaults. One got 3 months and one got 2 years”. Etc etc etc. it’s the same ridiculous slight of hand where 4 redneck meth heads shooting it out in an elementary school parking lot on a Saturday night counts as both a mass shooting and a school Shooting. Purposely misleading for less than truthful reasons

 

This is a little confusing but you seem to be asking how do we account for racial & gender disparities in sentencing outcomes/differences, yes?

You do this by including race, gender, and crime at sentencing as Independent Variables in the statistical model and sentencing outcomes as the Dependent Variable. If for instance you're interested in racial disparities, gender and crime for which a person is sentenced along with other variables (e.g. other demographic variables, public vs private defender, criminal history etc.) that possibly influence the relationship between race and sentencing outcomes would be included as Control Variables (which are a type of Independent Variable).

More or less racist would be the outcome, i.e. what you're trying to determine. It wouldn't be in a column in a data set but determined from the results of controlled measurement.

It is a logical fallacy ("ecological fallacy") to apply group-based crime rates to individuals who belong to the group.

Thus, you wouldn't try to correct for group-based racial disparities in sentencing of individuals based on group crime rates (and not on population proportion differences either).

Judges can reduce/eliminate disparities by ensuring beforehand that sentences for individuals are faiap equivalent regardless of race for similarly situated offenders (similar crime, circumstances, etc.).

 

All you're offering is speculation without any real knowledge as you lob this or that claim. This is just dumb.

 

It's not very hard. At the federal level, it's quite easy to track convictions, criminal history scores, the recommended guideline (including the numeric score underlying it), race, gender, and even extenuating circumstances. You're acting like people are stupid and unable to be nuanced in tracking data.