The American justice system has come under close scrutiny over the past few years. A multitude of heartbreaking cases from Eric Garner to Tamir Rice have sparked movements calling for a comprehensive overhaul of both police and court systems. And now, more scientific studies than ever are backing up these calls with hard evidence of racial bias.
The newest study on racial bias in the courtroom comes via South Carolina. First published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology it examines how a judge’s inherent racial bias might impact sentencing between those found guilty of similar crimes.
There have been prior studies that have looked into this issue before. One notable study from 2005 found that younger black and Latino men were given harsher sentences for committing the same crimes as white offenders.
Yet in this new study, the cases they looked at were not from a broad spectrum of offenders, including violent crimes, where most people would conclude a harsh prison sentence is either mandatory or preferred. Rather, it focused on “liberation bias,” where lesser, nonviolent crimes allow judges to use their own discretion when it came to sentencing.
Researchers from the University of Sheffield analyzed over 17,000 court cases from South Carolina and found that, “Black people with lower levels of criminal history were more likely than white people to be jailed, with the likelihood of incarceration increasing by as much as 43 per cent for those with no past criminal history to ten per cent for those with moderate criminal history.”
However, interestingly when severity of the crime was intensified, white offenders actually received longer average sentences than their black counterparts. Meaning petty crimes have a much higher impact on incarceration overall within the nation, and within the black community.
And these penalties on low-level, nonviolent offenders have the most substantial impact on the US prison system. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, more than half of those in prison are there for nonviolent offenses, with a whopping 46.6 percent being drug offenses. Compare that to those convicted of homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and sexual crimes (in other words, the people we actually want in prison) and combined those criminals only make up 10.8 percent of the prison population.
When looking at a judge’s “liberation bias” on smaller charges, like drugs and theft, it’s easy to see how those within the black community are impacted. This was something Dr. Todd Hartman, who worked on the study for the University of Sheffield, wanted to explore:
“Whether intentional or not, the fact that race appears to influence incarceration and criminal sentencing decisions is troubling. It is particularly concerning that this pattern of disparity appears to be affecting African American offenders with limited criminal histories or for less severe crimes.”
Dr. Hartman went on to say that he hopes the hard data provided in the study can influence the way those involved in the criminal justice system review their inherent bias. And while many of us might view the results of this study as common sense, it’s important to keep in mind that for those who make policy or try to effect change, hard peer-reviewed data is absolutely necessary. And for the justice system, it is another scathing indictment that justice in this country is far from blind.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.