268
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
268 points (98.6% liked)
News
23267 readers
3296 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Doesn’t that illustrate my point though?
Seriousness of charges isn’t necessarily the same as seriousness of crime. I read more about Knight’s case and it sounds like them departing from sentencing guidelines for armed robbery happened for the same reason as them wanting to charge him as an adult - I.e. that his actions were worse than you would think just from reading the name of the charge.
For serious offenses, they get treated the same. The only difference is for third-degree felonies, which it sounds like would be the main circumstance where that correlation would come into play. Why wouldn’t there be a difference in sentencing, when you’re specifically selecting for the more serious circumstances on the juvenile side and not on the adult side of the data you’re comparing?
Because if you are selecting for more serious circumstances, higher charges would apply. Giving them a lesser charge, but a longer sentence, doesn't make sense.
That is the entire point of the article, disproportionate sentencing for the same charges.
Again:
And:
Not every third degree felony is identical to every other third degree felony. There are ones where the circumstances of the case are going to warrant a longer sentence, and those are probably going to overlap with the ones where the circumstances of the case would warrant charging a juvenile as an adult.
And, the least serious felonies are going to have more "space" for more serious circumstances to exist, and so it would make sense how those have this anomalous thing exist with them, that doesn't exist with the more serious felonies where the charge better encompasses the full seriousness of the crime.
What is more likely is that more of the minors who are charged as adults are minorities, which is already known to result in disproportionately longer sentences. That is aligned with racist assumptions that minorities commit more crimes or the way they commit crimes is worse.
So as long as we are both speculating, mine is based on actual disproportionate outcomes in criminal sentencing and yours is based on an assumption that the disparity had a logical explanation. Disproportionate sentencing tends to be based on racism and sexism, not reasonable logic.
Why in your theory doesn't that happen for 1st and 2nd degree felonies?
The racism in the system applies across all levels -- for adults and kids, for 1st and 2nd and 3rd degree felonies. It could be that this particular effect is a result of some kind of unequal application, sure. But I wouldn't automatically assume that racism applies very specifically to 3rd degree felonies committed by juveniles in a way it doesn't for 2nd degree felonies, or for 3rd degree felonies committed by adults, or what have you.
It sort of sounds like you're assuming that something you already know (that the system is racist) is definitely responsible for anything and everything about the system, and anyone who doesn't see it that way automatically must just not know the system is racist, and you need to explain that to them. Yes, I know the system is racist.
It seems like you're just not grasping the mathematical concept I'm trying to explain (or maybe, just not even understanding that there might be anything to grasp other than that the system is racist.) And then saying the only explanation for anything in the criminal justice system is always racism. IDK man. I tried twice to explain it, and it seems like it failed both times.
If you want to understand, let me know, and I'll try again. If you just want to tell me that the system is racist (which, again, it is) and the problem is just that I'm too stupid to know that it is racist and need you to explain it to me, I think I'll go off and do something else instead.
Because longer sentences don't have as much proportional variance as a shorter sentence.
When a sentencing range is 1-5 years, some people will have sentences that are 5 times as long as others. When the sentencing range is 25-40 years, nobody will have a sentence that is even twice the duration of someone else.
I understand the point you are trying to make on math. I am saying your point is based on flawed assumptions.
Yes, I am also saying that racism and sexism are the most likely explanation for any disproportionate outcome when looking at the legal system. Single judges might have their own personal variance, but when looking at state levels and above it always ends up being racism or sexism that drives the trends.
What flawed assumptions?
You are assuming that what leads to a child being charged as an adult is the curcumstances of the crime, and that they will have a longer sentence for those lesser charges instead of different charges that reflect the sentence.
My assumption that the trend in this article is based on racism is because that is absolutely a thing that happens. Here's an article that covers just how racist Florida is for charging minors in general and charging them as adults.
Both race and the circumstances of the crime are going to impact their being charged as an adult, and the sentence they receive. The existence of racism doesn’t mean that the circumstances of the case will now have 0 bearing on their punishment - it’s not one or the other; it is both.
Like I say, the system is racist, yes. It feels like you just seized on an opportunity to lecture about racism and deny the existence of literally any other factor being possible except for race. It’s childish and reductive and hostile to things that are necessary for understanding the world. Stop doing that. This will be my last message to you on this topic.
I could say that people order vanilla ice cream more than chocolate because of racism, and then if someone said that wasn’t true I could cite a bunch of statistics about how racism is absolutely a thing that happens and get mad at them for denying the impact of racism, and it would make an equal amount of sense as your argument here.
You asked for an explanation and I provided it, then explained in further detail when you dismissed it. If that feels like being lectured, maybe you shouldn't ask for explanations.
I see you haven't given up on the explanation you pulled out of thin air to avoid the obvious explanation of racism. Why are you so dedicated to dismissing racism? Do you feel personally attacked by Florida's legal system being criticized for its racism?