SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A study by professors at Harvard University found that Republican-appointed judges give black defendents longer sentences than those appointed by Democrats. (Photo: Shawn/Flickr/cc)
Black Defendants Face Harsher Sentences From GOP-Appointed Judges, Study Finds
As Trump makes judicial appointments at breakneck speed, Harvard research exposes troubling sentencing disparities along racial lines
May 29, 2018
In the latest study detailing the criminal justice system's failure to deliver equal justice to Americans of varying races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, judges appointed by Republican presidents were found to give black defendants longer sentences than those appointed by Democrats.
More than 15 years of data on sentences handed out by 1,400 federal judges showed that black defendants are given sentences that are an average of three months longer when a Republican-appointed judge is on the bench, versus a judge nominated by a Democratic president. Female defendants were also served sentences that were two months shorter than those of males who were convicted of similar crimes.
"These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion," wrote Harvard Law School Professors Alma Cohen and Crystal S. Yang. The researchers used data from the Federal Judicial Center, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
The study also found that black judges treated male and female defendants more equally for similar convictions, and that black judges who were appointed by Republicans were slightly less likely to give black defendants harsh sentences.
The study is "an extraordinarily important contribution to our statistical understanding of sentencing decision making in federal courts over the last two decades," Douglas A. Berman, an criminal sentencing expert at Ohio State University, told the New York Times.
The dynamic illustrated in the Harvard study is likely to carry consequences for the justice system under President Donald Trump, considering the president's successful nomination of 29 federal judges since he took office in 2017. Trump has largely favored white judges for the nominations, with 92 percent of his first 87 judicial nominees being white. One was black and one was Latino, while five were Asian-American.
The Brookings Institution estimates that 50 percent of federal district court judges could be Republican appointees by mid-2020 if Trump's pace of nominations continues, up from 34 percent when he took office in 2017.
"Our estimates suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in the share of Republican-appointed judges in each court would increase the racial sentencing gap by approximately five percent and the gender sentencing gap by roughly two percent," wrote Yang and Cohen.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In the latest study detailing the criminal justice system's failure to deliver equal justice to Americans of varying races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, judges appointed by Republican presidents were found to give black defendants longer sentences than those appointed by Democrats.
More than 15 years of data on sentences handed out by 1,400 federal judges showed that black defendants are given sentences that are an average of three months longer when a Republican-appointed judge is on the bench, versus a judge nominated by a Democratic president. Female defendants were also served sentences that were two months shorter than those of males who were convicted of similar crimes.
"These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion," wrote Harvard Law School Professors Alma Cohen and Crystal S. Yang. The researchers used data from the Federal Judicial Center, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
The study also found that black judges treated male and female defendants more equally for similar convictions, and that black judges who were appointed by Republicans were slightly less likely to give black defendants harsh sentences.
The study is "an extraordinarily important contribution to our statistical understanding of sentencing decision making in federal courts over the last two decades," Douglas A. Berman, an criminal sentencing expert at Ohio State University, told the New York Times.
The dynamic illustrated in the Harvard study is likely to carry consequences for the justice system under President Donald Trump, considering the president's successful nomination of 29 federal judges since he took office in 2017. Trump has largely favored white judges for the nominations, with 92 percent of his first 87 judicial nominees being white. One was black and one was Latino, while five were Asian-American.
The Brookings Institution estimates that 50 percent of federal district court judges could be Republican appointees by mid-2020 if Trump's pace of nominations continues, up from 34 percent when he took office in 2017.
"Our estimates suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in the share of Republican-appointed judges in each court would increase the racial sentencing gap by approximately five percent and the gender sentencing gap by roughly two percent," wrote Yang and Cohen.
In the latest study detailing the criminal justice system's failure to deliver equal justice to Americans of varying races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, judges appointed by Republican presidents were found to give black defendants longer sentences than those appointed by Democrats.
More than 15 years of data on sentences handed out by 1,400 federal judges showed that black defendants are given sentences that are an average of three months longer when a Republican-appointed judge is on the bench, versus a judge nominated by a Democratic president. Female defendants were also served sentences that were two months shorter than those of males who were convicted of similar crimes.
"These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion," wrote Harvard Law School Professors Alma Cohen and Crystal S. Yang. The researchers used data from the Federal Judicial Center, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
The study also found that black judges treated male and female defendants more equally for similar convictions, and that black judges who were appointed by Republicans were slightly less likely to give black defendants harsh sentences.
The study is "an extraordinarily important contribution to our statistical understanding of sentencing decision making in federal courts over the last two decades," Douglas A. Berman, an criminal sentencing expert at Ohio State University, told the New York Times.
The dynamic illustrated in the Harvard study is likely to carry consequences for the justice system under President Donald Trump, considering the president's successful nomination of 29 federal judges since he took office in 2017. Trump has largely favored white judges for the nominations, with 92 percent of his first 87 judicial nominees being white. One was black and one was Latino, while five were Asian-American.
The Brookings Institution estimates that 50 percent of federal district court judges could be Republican appointees by mid-2020 if Trump's pace of nominations continues, up from 34 percent when he took office in 2017.
"Our estimates suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in the share of Republican-appointed judges in each court would increase the racial sentencing gap by approximately five percent and the gender sentencing gap by roughly two percent," wrote Yang and Cohen.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.