[Unsurprising 'News'] When Race Tips the Scales in Plea Bargaining

Like you say, unsurprising, so I don't know what there is to say about it. Unless someone would oblige us by saying the study is bs and that there is no systemic racism in our judicial process. In that case, I'd predict 10 pages of fruitless bickering, at least!

 

More sad evidence which I fear will be ignored by the people that most need to pay attention to this. This lack of equality in our justice system is bad for the whole United States.

 

Bobby enters the match.

 

Having money definitely gives you a better chance of a hiring a decent lawyer and striking a better deal. I hope they are able to fix this but it will be very challenging.

 

If bobby actually shows up and tries to say that the study doesn't take into account background, previous criminal record, or other factors, here is the study itself. If you're bobby and you're reading this, understand the study before trying those tired attempts at argument...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3036726

 

I hope they can fix that too, as well as the racial inequality in the justice system.

 

It doesn't take into account differences related to representation and I'd argue that is the major difference between the groups. Like the study says, the differences are most noticeable with minor offenses among those with no criminal record.....the exact area where a good lawyer will get vastly different outcomes than either no lawyer or a bad lawyer. The study suggests that the disparity disappears when it comes to major offenses or instances involving those with significant priors....situations where even good lawyers would struggle to get a very good plea bargain on average.

This study suggests that race is the primary cause of the different outcomes despite the fact that there is a much more logical cause....which is pretty much par for the course with these kinds of studies. They are done in an effort to "prove" a pre-conceived notion and the results are tainted by that cognitive bias. Confirmation bias can be a b****.

 

To show a real life example of this, about 15 years ago I got arrested for suspicion of DUI and about a year later I had a friend who was also arrested for the same thing.

I went out and hired Gary Trichter's firm to represent me despite that being pretty damn expensive because I couldn't afford to have a DUI on my record.....and sure enough, they beat the case and I don't have that DUI on my record.

My friend got a much less expensive lawyer to represent him and he ended up with a breathalyzer on his car, had to pay fines, lost his license for a bit, and had to go through probation for a few years as part of the conviction.....despite the state having a weaker case against him than they had against me.

Spending the money and hiring good lawyers to defend you makes all the difference in the world.

When group A has significantly more access to wealth than group B, you'll see differences in representation and as a result, differences in outcomes.

 

Well, other than the fact that the study explicitly controls for the exact issue you mention.

Absolutely, but first and minor offenses are where racial disparities are the biggest problem. These are the types of offenses which set the baseline that affects how harshly that person will be treated in the future. The massive racial disparities highlighted by this study (after controlling for socioeconomic status, private versus public defenders, and other relevant factors) affect people long after the first offense is a faint memory and cascade into even bigger racial disparities throughout the criminal justice system.

Yes, as you have clearly proven. The "much more logical cause" that you assume is controlled for in the study. You have a pre-conceived notion (race isn't as big a factor in criminal justice racial disparities as other factors) and even when evidence like this study is presented, evidence that clearly controls for and discusses the fact that your pre-conceived notion is bullshit, you will ignore the evidence in favor of just believing the bullshit you've already decided to believe.

Like I said above, endeavor to understand the evidence (consider actually reading the study so that you can understand how it controls for the factors you assume are more influential) before commenting further.

 

Factors that were explicitly controlled for in the study.

 

Mandatory minimums rob judiciary discretion. Though judges are flawed humans, i'd rather put sentences up to them than an auto go-straight-to-jail card regardless of if it was a violent offense or other extenuating facts/circumstances.

& yes, better lawyers lead to better results, still doesn't excuse the harshness and simplistic nature of mandatory minimums.

 

No, they really weren't, but don't let that stop you. They tried to address it as best they could, knowing they couldn't fully account for it because there isn't a complete and accurate ranking of all attorneys that would be involved and exactly , but even the small bit they did altered the results significantly just as I would expect them to. If they were better able to account for quality of representation along with the numerous other variables at play then most of the disparity should vanish.

Anyway, I know it's no good to reason with people like you, but hopefully others will wise up to this kind of BS and realize that "the man" isn't holding anyone down. Possibly too much to expect, but I'm feeling optimistic.

 

God ****ing dammit another thread ruined by this *******. Doesn't even discuss anything, just mouth diarrhea.

 

Being an irrational, ignorant contrarian is his life's mission. Along with telling you who deserves to die today of course.

 

I'm not sure why people are surprised with Bobby's assertions. He's already claimed that other research and studies on race matters that have been examined and data-driven aren't accepted by him, basically because he thinks he knows better. If someone refuses to accept valid evidence, then there is nothing more that you can do for that person. They need to learn more on their own.

 

The leniency of sentences and plea offers are always predicated on a ton of factors surrounding the case and the defendant's background/history.

The question this all begs is...

Are black defendants being punished more harshly because of the color of their skin, or are they punished more harshly because the aggregate background/history of these defendants is worse than that of their non-black counterparts?

If it's the former -- we should be able to prove this quite easily and throw these judges out on their asses.

 

Didnt we just have a thread on this topic last week? And probably the week before?

 

A different aspect of our justice system that is also biased against a particular race.

It's amazing how much evidence exists that point to racial bias within the system and some people are still angry that those suffering from that racial bias get upset when they voice their displeasure.

 

For a country that uses "freedom" as a rallying cry, we sure have a whole lot of money and beurocracy dedicated to making and keeping people un-free.