Race, Sentencing and the "Tough Crime" Movement

[dustup]

• Tweet

Race, Sentencing and the "Tough Crime" Movement

Sentencing is arguably the most important stage of the criminal justice system. While policing strategies help determine who will be subjected to the criminal process in the first place, and prosecutorial choices help determine who will be granted leniency from the full force of the law, sentencing is where those earlier decisions bear fruit.

No one who has ever visited a prison and seen human beings locked in cages like animals can ever be unmindful of the enormity of society’s decision to deprive one of its members of his or her liberty. The decision to sentence a convicted criminal to prison has, until recently, been viewed as a profound responsibility, one entrusted solely to impartial judges. Increasingly, however, sentencing has become mundane and mechanistic, a decision effectively controlled by legislators, prosecutors and sentencing commissioners. This change in the culture of sentencing has had disastrous consequences for minorities in the United States.

Article snippet........
"C. Racially Disparate Sentencing Outcomes

One of the most thorough studies of sentencing disparities was undertaken by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, which studied felony sentencing outcomes in New York courts between 1990 and 1992. The State concluded that one-third of minorities sentenced to prison would have received a shorter or non-incarcerative sentence if they had been treated like similarly situated white defendants. If probation-eligible blacks had been treated like their white counterparts, more than 8000 fewer black defendants would have received prison sentences in that two year period, resulting in a five percent decline in the percentage of blacks sentenced to prison as a percentage of the entire sentenced population. In short, the study found, blacks are sentenced to prison more frequently than whites for the same conduct.

Other sentencing data is consistent with the New York findings. Nationwide, black males convicted of drug felonies in state courts are sentenced to prison 52 percent of the time, while white males are sentenced to prison only 34 percent of the time. The ratio for women is similar – 41 percent of black female felony drug offenders are sentenced to prison, as compared to 24 percent of white females. With respect to violent offenses, 74 percent of black male convicted felons serve prison time, as opposed to only 60 percent of white male convicted felons. With respect to all felonies, 58 percent of black male convicted felons, as opposed to 45 percent of white men, serve prison sentences.

End Snippet......

"The Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 authorizes prison construction grants to states that “increase the average prison time actually served or the average percent of sentence served by persons convicted of a . . . violent crime.” 42 USC § 13703 (2000). In the same vein, a bill recently passed by the House of Representatives authorizes grants to states that enact mandatory minimum sentencing laws for certain gun crimes. See H.R. 4051, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. (March 22, 2000) (passed House on April 13, 2000)."

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/sentencing.html

Sponsored by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks (D) of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden (D) of Delaware, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D)

[Case_Closed]

It's because you can rehabilitate white people.  Not so with blacks.

[IM2]

dust up showed you more of the continuing racism I have been talking about for years.

[Case_Closed]

dust up showed you more of the continuing racism I have been talking about for years.

Have you ever been to prison, IM2?

Have you ever been arrested?

I'll bet if you've ever been stopped, you're the most mild-mannered negro they stopped that night.  Yassah, Nosuh, Yassah, officuh.

Shit, I'll bet you even give them a tap dancing demonstration.

[IM2]

What the fuck does this have to do with the racist shit that was shown to your dumb ass?

I'll answer, nothing.

Stupid People Own Guns Too

[Case_Closed]

More like Bojangles2, huh?

LOL

[IM2]

This is a white man almost blowing his head off by trying to clean out the gun with the barrel pointing at his head. Bojangles has got nothing to do with this one.

[dustup]

In 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson decided that the government needed to make an effort to curtail the social unrest that blanketed the country at the time. He decided to focus his efforts on illegal drug use. While this may seem to be an unrelated initiative, Johnson’s choice to go after illegal drugs was in line with expert opinion on the subject at the time. In the 1960s, it was believed that at least half of the crime in the U.S. was drug related, and this number grew as high as 90 percent in the next decade.[63] He created the Reorganization Plan of 1968 which merged the Bureau of Narcotics and the Bureau of Drug Abuse to form the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs within the Department of Justice.[64] The direction of these powerful new resources was another issue altogether, one that once again became misled by false public perception. The belief during this time about drug use was summarized by journalist Max Lerner in his celebrated work America as a Civilization:

"As a case in point we may take the known fact of the prevalence of reefer and dope addiction in Negro areas. This is essentially explained in terms of poverty, slum living, and broken families, yet it would be easy to show the lack of drug addiction among other ethnic groups where the same conditions apply.[65]"

This public declaration clearly defines the racial context within which the War on Drugs had its beginning in the Johnson administration.

Richard Nixon became president in 1969, and did not shy away from the anti- drug precedent set by Johnson. Nixon began orchestrating drug raids nationwide to improve his “watchdog” reputation, and once again, racially discriminatory public opinion was a driving force behind the scenes. Lois B. Defleur, a social historian who studied drug arrests during this period in Chicago, stated that, “police administrators indicated they were making the kind of arrests the public wanted.” Additionally, some of Nixon’s newly create drug enforcement agencies would resort to illegal practices to make arrests as they tried to meet public demand for arrest numbers. From 1972 to 1973, the Office of Drug Abuse and Law Enforcement performed 6,000 drug arrests in 18 months, the majority of the arrested black.[66]

The next two presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, responded with programs that were essentially a continuation of their predecessors. Then Ronald Reagan became President in 1982, and the racial bias within the War on Drugs received a new resurgence. In a speech delivered soon after taking office, Reagan announced, “We’re taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we’re running up a battle flag.[67]” For his first five years in office, Reagan slowly strengthened drug enforcement by creating mandatory minimum sentencing and forfeiture of cash and real estate for drug offenses, policies far more detrimental to poor blacks than any other sector affected by the new laws.

Then, driven by the 1986 cocaine overdose of black basketball star Len Bias, Reagan was able to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act through Congress. This legislation appropriated an additional $1.7 million to fund the War on Drugs. More importantly, it established 29 new, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, a number that becomes gaudier when one considers that in the entire history of the country up until that point, the legal system had only seen 55 minimum sentences in total.[68] A major stipulation of the new sentencing rules included different mandatory minimums for powder and crack cocaine. At the time of the bill, there was public debate as to the difference in potency and effect of powder cocaine, generally used by whites, and crack cocaine, generally used by blacks, with many believing that “crack” was substantially more powerful and addictive. Crack and powder cocaine are pharmaceutically equal, although crack has been dehydrated into rock form to allow for a shorter, more intense high using less of the drug. This method is more cost effective, and therefore more prevalent on the inner-city streets, while powder cocaine remains more popular in white suburbia. Seeing an opportunity, the Reagan administration began shoring public opinion against “crack,” encouraging DEA official Robert Putnam to play up the harmful effects of the drug. Stories of “crack whores” and “crack babies” became commonplace; by 1986, Time had declared “crack” the issue of the year.[69] Riding the wave of public fervor, Reagan established much harsher sentencing for crack cocaine, handing down stiffer felony penalties for much smaller amounts of the drug, a move that directly targeted the black community.[70]

Reagan protégé and former Vice-President George H. W. Bush was next to occupy the oval office, and the drug policy under his watch held true to his political background. Bush maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss, increasing narcotics regulation when the First National Drug Control Strategy was issued by the Office of National Drug Control in 1989,[71] and doing nothing to reduce sentencing disparaties and racial bias carrying over from the Reagan administration.

The next three presidents – Clinton, Bush and Obama – continued this trend, maintaining the War on Drugs as they inherited it upon taking office.[72] During this time of passivity by the federal government, it was the states that initiated controversial legislation in the War on Drugs. Racial bias manifested itself in the states through such controversial policies as the “stop and frisk” police practices in New York city and the “three strikes” felony laws began in California in 1994.[73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

[Case_Closed]

And I suppose it's the White Man's fault that coloreds are drug abusers?

[DougRich]

How much or little this personal experience is relevant to the subject of the OP, you are free to judge for yourselves.

For a few years of my time in the Navy, I served as a Command Master-at-Arms, and my duties included standing by during non-judicial punishment proceedings, and serving as a prisoner escort during courts-martial. I saw dozens, perhaps hundreds, of accused sailors and Marines facing either their Commanding Officer or a Court Martial board. And yes, I would have to say that Black service members, overall, did receive greater punishments for their offenses than did their White counterparts.

I also believe that I saw the reason for much of that disparity in the attitude and demeanor of the accused.

Not every Caucasian accused was the picture of contrition; they didn't all perspire and stammer and look to be on the verge of tears, though some certainly did; some didn't even appear to be all that sorry. On the other hand, I'd have to honestly say that the vast majority of the Black accused presented a very clear, common impression - defiance. Time after time, I watched a Black sailor or Marine as he glared at the man or men responsible for determining his punishment. More than one refused to comply with repeated directions to address the C.O. or judicial officers as "Sir". This was a phenomenon that we, the ones doing the job, including the Black MAAs, all noticed and commented upon among ourselves.

Racially and ethnically, the disparity in attitude and behavior among defendants is less pronounced in the civilian judicial system, simply because even a marginally well-trained civilian attorney will coach his or her client on the finer points of "looking sorry and harmless" for the judge or jury. Nevertheless, I have seen flashes of that same defiance that I remember from so many years ago, in the faces of Black criminal defendants before the court, and I believe that I've also observed their penalties multiplying as a result.

[Case_Closed]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Boffo]

Doug
your experience seems to indicate that the disparity in sentencing is caused more by the perps disposition and attitude than by the amount of pigment he's blessed with.  correct me if I'm wrong.

would it not be fair to extrapolate that experience into the civilian criminal justice system?

I don't see how the "lawyer" factor would change much, they are provided in a pigment blind manner, and as I recall, the military will/must provide defense counsel as well.

[IM2]

I also believe that I saw the reason for much of that disparity in the attitude and demeanor of the accused.

Another excuse. All the blacks have got to have a bad attitude, but whites don't. I suppose the difference in treatment of blacks and whites by police have nothing to do with the attitudes you claim. C'mon man!

[Case_Closed]

Another excuse. All the blacks have got to have a bad attitude, but whites don't. I suppose the difference in treatment of blacks and whites by police have nothing to do with the attitudes you claim. C'mon man!

If you came in to a Court with the attitude you display on this board and you were unlucky enough to get a Judge who was cranky, boy, you'd get life in prison for a parking ticket.

There's only so much Asshole White People will tolerate.

[DougRich]

Doug
your experience seems to indicate that the disparity in sentencing is caused more by the perps disposition and attitude than by the amount of pigment he's blessed with.  correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not suggesting that it's anything like the whole answer, but I do believe that it's indisputably one factor among several.

would it not be fair to extrapolate that experience into the civilian criminal justice system?

I see far less of the open defiance in civilian proceedings. The reasons for that are no doubt several. One that comes immediately to mind is the experience level of a typical civilian arrestee, as opposed to a kid in the military; the civilian has probably been in front of judges any number of times over the course of years, and knows the game; the military kid is frequently in serious trouble for the first time in his life, and isn't as practiced at concealing his contempt for the system...or his fear, which frequently emerges as hostility.

I

don't see how the "lawyer" factor would change much, they are provided in a pigment blind manner, and as I recall, the military will/must provide defense counsel as well.

They're only entitled to an attorney in a Court-Martial proceeding, not in the case of NJP, where lesser offenses are decided.