🚨 On a day when #SCOTUS has taken us a huge step backwards, I want to make a very small offering of this hot-off-the-presses #law / #criminaljustice / #socialjustice work. I'm going to sunshine where racially biased courtroom actors are. A 🧡. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01879-5
Federal criminal sentencing: race-based disparate impact and differential treatment in judicial districts - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Race-based inequity in federal criminal sentencing is widely acknowledged, and yet our understanding of it is far from complete. Inequity may arise from several sources, including direct bias of courtroom actors and structural bias that produces racially disparate impacts. Irrespective of these sources, inequity may also originate from different loci within the federal system. We bring together the questions of the sources and loci of inequity. The purpose of our study is to quantify race-based disparate impact and differential treatment at the national level and at the level of individual federal judicial districts. We analyze over one-half million sentencing records publicly available from the United States Sentencing Commission database, spanning the years 2006 to 2020. At the system-wide level, Black and Hispanic defendants receive average sentences that are approximately 19 months longer and 5 months longer, respectively. Demographic factors and sentencing guideline elements account for nearly 17 of the 19 months for Black defendants and all five of the months for Hispanic defendants, demonstrating the disparate impact of the system at the national level. At the individual district level, even after controlling for each district’s unique demographics and implementation of sentencing factors, 14 districts show significant differences for minoritized defendants as compared to white ones. These unexplained differences are evidence of possible differential treatment by judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

Nature
Shaoyang Ning (@ShaoyangNing) / Twitter

Statistician

Twitter
Here's the short version. Race-based inequity in federal criminal sentencing is widely acknowledged, and yet our understanding of it is far from complete.
Inequity can arise from several sources, including direct bias of courtroom actors and structural bias that produces racially disparate impacts.
Irrespective of these sources, inequity may also originate from different loci within the federal system. After all, each federal district is its own thing.
We bring together the questions of the sources and loci of inequity, assessing race-based disparate impact and differential treatment at the national level and at the level of individual federal judicial districts. 🚨🚨 And boy-howdy do we find plenty of inequity. 🚨🚨
Here's the longer version. And here, I am leaving out all the technical stuff. For technical stuff, read the paper.

Chapter The First

Background: How does criminal sentencing work?

(in VERY brief)

In case you're new to how federal criminal sentencing works, here's a quick explainer. The U.S. has "sentencing guidelines" that specify a suggested range of incarceration for convicted individuals. The suggested range depends primarily on two factors.
The first factor is criminal history of the defendant. The second factor is severity level of the alleged crime. A "sentencing grid" specifies a recommended range of incarceration based on these two factors.
Various other factors can tweak that baseline recommendation up or down. But long story short, the U.S. sentencing guidelines are an algorithm where you put in stuff about the defendant and the alleged crime, and out comes a recommended sentence.
And BTW, one LITTLE πŸ‘€ point: the guidelines are completely advisory. Barring some special circumstances (e.g., mandatory minimums) judges can give whatever sentences they want. I'M LOOKING AT YOU, GUY WHO GAVE PAUL MANAFORT 47 MONTHS.
Anyway, now that you know a bit about sentencing...

Chapter The Second

How can racial disparities arise?

Racial disparities in sentencing can show up in (at least) three ways.
(1) An association between being minoritized and having a conviction with a longer presumptive sentence on the grid. Why might this happen?
When minoritized people are #overpoliced / overprosecuted, it results in more criminal history for those individuals, which results in harsher penalties for convictions down the road, should they occur.
Or, perhaps socioeconomic circumstances play a role that leads minority groups to be prosecuted for crimes with higher offense levels.
Or, perhaps the guidelines were originally built on an already-racist system so that assumptions and biases were codified into a structure that perpetuates them. PERHAPS. πŸ‘€ Moving on, we have...
(2) Variation in the specifics of implementing the sentencing grid. Even if sentences stay within the guideline ranges, disparity is created when the upper part of those ranges is used on alleged crimes that happen to have an association with race.
This certainly could vary across juditical districts. For instance: "we're tough on drugs in this here district" + "Group Z is frequently convicted of drug crimes" results in disparity for Group Z.
(3) Racial bias of court actors: potentially prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges (and maybe others). This could be implicit bias or explicit racial animus. And now...

Chapter The Third

What We Found

We use two models.
Model I measures the still-unexplained racial disparity within each district by including an interaction of district and defendant race, while accounting for a nationwide-aggregated age, gender, educational attainment, sentencing year, presence of a guilty plea, ...
...presumptive sentence, mandatory minimum laws, and government sponsored downward departures.
Model II allows for interdistrict variations in defendant demographics, in the application of presumptive sentences, and more. Put plainly: this model "allows" each district to implement the grid however it wants, rather than using the nationally-averaged behavior.
The most important role of Model I is to set a benchmark for comparison when we fit Model II.
Here's what we found. I'll break down these results in three parts.
Results Part I: For Model I, 22 districts show a significant disparity for one or more racial groups (black symbols)... or to tally it differently, there are disparities for 24 district/race combinations.
Within the framework set by this model, these results have at least two interpretations. One interpretation is that there may be bias of courtroom actors, that is, differential treatment, for the identified district-race combinations. We will come back to this one.
The second interpretation is that the system has a structural disparate impact. As a concrete example, the estimated Black-white disparity of 13 months in the Eastern District of Virginia could indicate that for socioeconomic reasons, Black defendants are more strongly associated with offenses and criminal histories that have longer presumptive sentences.
To address this type of structural disparity requires us to think not only about socioeconomic determinants, but also about who is policed, who is arrested, who is prosecuted, who is convicted, and why particular cells in the sentencing grid carry longer presumptive penalties.
In short, elimination of these disparities would require structural change focused outside of the courtroom.
Results Part II: For 20 district-race combinations, District Model I shows a statistically significant disparity (black symbols) that is either reduced or lost in District Model II (orange symbols). To restate this result...
Conditioning on all factors at the individual district level results in a reduced estimate of racial disparity for these 20 cases. We interpret this reduction in racial disparity as evidence of differential impact on minoritized groups.