Racial Bias in Florida Sentencing

[Ana the Ist]

And no, one does not need to account for every possible factor because one does not need to know every possible weight in a model.

It's probably a good idea though...especially if you're going to lay blame at people's feet.

 

[jardiniere]

It's probably a good idea though...especially if you're going to lay blame at people's feet.

Is it criminal blame or civil blame? I.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence".
I'm tending to think it's a civil blame, so I would guess the gathered evidence for the disparities in sentences are well enough factored to give a reasonable analysis. I don't think its a reasonable request, with this much data, to dismiss it totally because all possible factors are not there. After all, all possible factors is actually a physically impossible feat.

I think one of the interesting things we observe today is the way computerized data can actually be racist in results gleaned, based on inputing data of the sort found in this study. If you wanted to find out how to police better, and used this data in a computer program to help find areas where one should police more, then the sentences doled out would provide more weight towards policing poor people or black people more than rich people or white people- even though the original data only shows that the human judges weighed sentences differently!

In other words, use of this data without in-depth analysis can lead to a type of racism that is not actually the 'fault' of any person, that is, institutional racism that is completely inadvertent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it criminal blame or civil blame? I.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence".
I'm tending to think it's a civil blame, so I would guess the gathered evidence for the disparities in sentences are well enough factored to give a reasonable analysis. I don't think its a reasonable request, with this much data, to dismiss it totally because all possible factors are not there. After all, all possible factors is actually a physically impossible feat.

The problem I have jard...is that I've been to court many many times, and seen the outcome of many many cases. Hundreds at this point. I cannot think of a single instance where I thought "wow...that sentence was too harsh, he must be racist". The fact is, there a ton of little things that go into a judge's decision/ruling and you couldn't possibly hope to ever find a simple apples to apples comparison between them.

For example, here's two cases of assaulting a minor...

Woman accused of assaulting minor

Three Sisters Accused of Assaulting a 12-Year-Old Girl – City of Columbia Police Department

Let's imagine for a moment that they happened in the same place...went before the same judge...that they faced the same assault charges (and nothing else)...and they had the exact same criminal history, none. I'd bet dollars to cents the three black girls get a "harsher" sentence...and it wouldn't have anything to do with race, just the details of their crime. Three sisters going to a twelve year old girl's house and beating her isn't the same as a mother stepping between her daughter and another child who are fighting and beating the other child. That's exactly why we let judges impose sentences based on their subjective experience.

There's other factors which cannot possibly be accounted for...like the defendant's behavior during trial. I've even seen a study that shows the hungrier a judge is, the more likely they'll impose a stiffer sentence.

You're putting far too much faith in sociologists. They're good at gathering data...poor at drawing conclusions from it.

 

[jardiniere]

The problem I have jard...is that I've been to court many many times, and seen the outcome of many many cases. Hundreds at this point. I cannot think of a single instance where I thought "wow...that sentence was too harsh, he must be racist".

Look how much data needed to be amassed in order to speculate on this issue in the first place. I doubt a few hundred cases would be sufficient to draw a conclusion of any worth.

The fact is, there a ton of little things that go into a judge's decision/ruling and you couldn't possibly hope to ever find a simple apples to apples comparison between them.

For example, here's two cases of assaulting a minor...

Woman accused of assaulting minor

Three Sisters Accused of Assaulting a 12-Year-Old Girl – City of Columbia Police Department

Let's imagine for a moment that they happened in the same place...went before the same judge...that they faced the same assault charges (and nothing else)...and they had the exact same criminal history, none. I'd bet dollars to cents the three black girls get a "harsher" sentence...and it wouldn't have anything to do with race, just the details of their crime. Three sisters going to a twelve year old girl's house and beating her isn't the same as a mother stepping between her daughter and another child who are fighting and beating the other child. That's exactly why we let judges impose sentences based on their subjective experience.

The data did happen. The results are in black and white. There is no imagination in the data. There can only be imagination in the interpretation. And no amount of factors will ever fix that. Why are you bothering with "imagine for a moment" when you could be working with the data in front of you?

There's other factors which cannot possibly be accounted for...like the defendant's behavior during trial. I've even seen a study that shows the hungrier a judge is, the more likely they'll impose a stiffer sentence.

I've heard that too. Not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the data. Is it a factor you want to see investigated? Are you convinced it's an important factor that would demonstrate the point that some judges' sentences alter before and after lunch? Regardless of whether they do or not, that actually cannot influence or discount the current conclusions drawn from the data, it can only add to the conclusions.

You're putting far too much faith in sociologists. They're good at gathering data...poor at drawing conclusions from it.

That's a really stupid opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Look how much data needed to be amassed in order to speculate on this issue in the first place. I doubt a few hundred cases would be sufficient to draw a conclusion of any worth.



The data did happen. The results are in black and white. There is no imagination in the data. There can only be imagination in the interpretation. And no amount of factors will ever fix that. Why are you bothering with "imagine for a moment" when you could be working with the data in front of you?



I've heard that too. Not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the data. Is it a factor you want to see investigated? Are you convinced it's an important factor that would demonstrate the point that some judges' sentences alter before and after lunch? Regardless of whether they do or not, that actually cannot influence or discount the current conclusions drawn from the data, it can only add to the conclusions.


That's a really stupid opinion.

Sorry, I made the mistake of actually thinking you were interested in discussing this.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The problem I have jard...is that I've been to court many many times, and seen the outcome of many many cases. Hundreds at this point. I cannot think of a single instance where I thought "wow...that sentence was too harsh, he must be racist". The fact is, there a ton of little things that go into a judge's decision/ruling and you couldn't possibly hope to ever find a simple apples to apples comparison between them.

<snip>

There's other factors which cannot possibly be accounted for...like the defendant's behavior during trial. I've even seen a study that shows the hungrier a judge is, the more likely they'll impose a stiffer sentence.

That illustrates the danger in allowing subjectivity to permeate the process. I've heard about the proximity to lunch being a factor. I've also heard about studies showing that a sentence can be influenced by the details of the cases and the severity of the sentences that immediately preceded it. (IIRC, this study had to do with immigration/asylum cases and found something to the effect of, if a judge had approved two cases in a row, they were more likely to deny the third. Or if they'd denied two, they were more likely to approve the third.)

How does a fair system factor into its outcomes a judge's diet or the order in which the cases are heard?

A sentence doesn't have to be extreme in order to be influenced by race - it can be well within the bounds of reasonable, but just skewed towards the more severe end. You mentioned a defendant's attitude - that attitude is filtered through the perceptions of the judge. And if the judge (even inadvertently) harbors some negative attitudes or cultural misunderstandings of a minority defendant, he can impart some extra negativity onto his interpretation of the defendant's attitude, and impose a harsher sentence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That illustrates the danger in allowing subjectivity to permeate the process.

I don't think it would be better if it wasn't subjective.

I've heard about the proximity to lunch being a factor. I've also heard about studies showing that a sentence can be influenced by the details of the cases and the severity of the sentences that immediately preceded it. (IIRC, this study had to do with immigration/asylum cases and found something to the effect of, if a judge had approved two cases in a row, they were more likely to deny the third. Or if they'd denied two, they were more likely to approve the third.)

I was under the impression that asylum was something that's investigated and then granted or denied according to the investigation.

How does a fair system factor into its outcomes a judge's diet or the order in which the cases are heard?

We have this ideal of a perfectly objective and unbiased justice system which always metes out the justice we deem appropriate.

That's never going to happen.

As long as people are involved, there will be some mistakes...some disagreement on what's "fair".

The best remedy for this? Don't commit any crimes. This severely reduces the chance one will be treated unfairly by the justice system.

A sentence doesn't have to be extreme in order to be influenced by race - it can be well within the bounds of reasonable, but just skewed towards the more severe end. You mentioned a defendant's attitude - that attitude is filtered through the perceptions of the judge. And if the judge (even inadvertently) harbors some negative attitudes or cultural misunderstandings of a minority defendant, he can impart some extra negativity onto his interpretation of the defendant's attitude, and impose a harsher sentence.

Sure...but I see no remedy for this.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I was under the impression that asylum was something that's investigated and then granted or denied according to the investigation.

AFAIK, it's still the judge's call. I heard about it on an episode of Freakonomics where they discussed the gambler's fallacy:
How to Make a Bad Decision - Freakonomics

Their link to the original paper doesn't work, but this one does:
https://site.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/decision-making_under_the_gamblers_fallacy_-_shue.pdf

 

[Ana the Ist]

AFAIK, it's still the judge's call. I heard about it on an episode of Freakonomics where they discussed the gambler's fallacy:
How to Make a Bad Decision - Freakonomics

Their link to the original paper doesn't work, but this one does:
https://site.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/decision-making_under_the_gamblers_fallacy_-_shue.pdf

It's hard to understand how they can gauge whether or not that particular fallacy is influencing a judge's decision when they don't have enough information to know whether or not the decision is correct.

Asylum cases aren't like regular cases in that it's entirely based upon whether or not evidence exists that supports the asylum seekers' reasons for seeking asylum.

For example, let's say a chinese illegal claims they are murdering christians where he's from in China...and he would be murdered for being christian as well. His case would literally proceed like this...

1. Is there evidence to support his claim? He's granted asylum.

2. Is there no evidence to support his claim? He isn't granted asylum.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's hard to understand how they can gauge whether or not that particular fallacy is influencing a judge's decision when they don't have enough information to know whether or not the decision is correct.

Asylum cases aren't like regular cases in that it's entirely based upon whether or not evidence exists that supports the asylum seekers' reasons for seeking asylum.

For example, let's say a chinese illegal claims they are murdering christians where he's from in China...and he would be murdered for being christian as well. His case would literally proceed like this...

1. Is there evidence to support his claim? He's granted asylum.

2. Is there no evidence to support his claim? He isn't granted asylum.

According to the description given in the paper, that assessment isn't correct. From what they describe, the asylum hearings are adversarial in nature, where an applicant argues his case and a DHS representative argues against it.

But either way, you don't necessarily need to know the merits of each case in order to determine if there are other elements at work. The way the cases are assigned is essentially random - they're assigned at random to judges in the pool, and then processed first-in-first-out. With a random distribution of input, the distribution of the decisions should also have certain characteristics. But if the output distribution looks like different than that, then something's up. This isn't unlike how professors can detect cheating by analyzing the distribution of grades.

 

[Ana the Ist]

According to the description given in the paper, that assessment isn't correct. From what they describe, the asylum hearings are adversarial in nature, where an applicant argues his case and a DHS representative argues against it.

In my understanding, the DHS is the one who investigates the claims. I'm fairly certain that they only argue against it if there's no evidence to support it.

Think about it...what illegal cannot provide evidence of his claims, and he lacks money for a lawyer willing to do it.

I'm sure in cases where there's no evidence to support asylum, he still gets to plead his case before a judge, but it's really just a formality. If they meet the standards for asylum, it's granted....if they don't, it's not.

The court proceedings are just a formality to my knowledge.

But either way, you don't necessarily need to know the merits of each case in order to determine if there are other elements at work. The way the cases are assigned is essentially random - they're assigned at random to judges in the pool, and then processed first-in-first-out. With a random distribution of input, the distribution of the decisions should also have certain characteristics. But if the output distribution looks like different than that, then something's up. This isn't unlike how professors can detect cheating by analyzing the distribution of grades.