STUDY: CITIZENSHIP STATUS BIGGER SENTENCING DISCREPANCY THAN RACE
Until now, an abundance of research has emerged illustrating colossal racial discrepancies in the criminal justice system (and many other systems). But according to a forthcoming study, citizenship is even more influential than race in determining if a person will go to prison and how long they will be locked up.
In the United States, undocumented immigrants are four times more likely to be incarcerated, and spend two to four months longer in jail for the same crimes as legal citizens, according to the groundbreaking study authored by Michael Light of Purdue University, which will published in the American Sociological Review.
The gap between citizens and non-citizens is larger than the gap between black and white offenders. The study looked at non-immigration-related offenses in the non-citizen federal prison population (which is a quarter of the entire federal prison pop.).
Yahoo News’ Liz Goodwin has more on the study. Here are some clips:
This sentencing gap between citizens and noncitizens is even larger than ones found between black defendants and white defendants, according to Michael T. Light, the study’s author and an assistant professor of sociology at Purdue University. Lacking citizenship appears to be worse news for a defendant than his or her race. A white noncitizen faces more jail time, on average, than a black U.S. citizen convicted of the same crime, the study found.
Citizenship “appears to trump race and ethnicity when determining punishments for those who violate U.S. law,” the study concludes. The effect was starkest for undocumented immigrants, but even legal immigrants faced significantly longer sentences than citizens convicted of the same crimes, regardless of their race. Most of the sentencing disparity between Hispanics and whites could be explained by the higher percentage of noncitizens in the Hispanic group, the study found.
POLICE AGENCIES’ UNWANTED MILITARY GEAR HARD TO RETURN, JUST GETS MOVED TO ANOTHER TOWN
Since Ferguson, law enforcement agencies have felt considerable pressure to get rid of military surplus armored vehicles, firearms, and gear. But agencies have found that not only is it very difficult to return military gear, when the military does take it back, it’s because a different agency wants it. So, for forces like the LAUSD police department agreeing to give back unnecessary grenade launchers, and the San Jose police department trying to get rid of a mine-resistant vehicle, the gear and vehicles they return will likely just be handed off to another town.
Mother Jones’ Molly Redden has more on the issue. Here’s a clip:
…some agencies have found the process of getting rid of unwanted military gear next to impossible. Agencies can’t return or trade large pieces of tactical equipment without Defense Department approval, and because the Pentagon technically still owns that equipment, they can’t sell it.
According to interviews with state officials running point between the Pentagon and police, the Defense Department prefers to leave equipment in circulation whenever possible. “It’s a low-cost storage method for them,” says Robb Davis, the mayor pro tem of Davis. His town is trying to shake its MRAP. “They’re dumping these vehicles on us and saying, ‘Hey, these are still ours, but you have to maintain them for us.'”
[SNIP]
“The federal government is just not interested in getting this stuff back,” says Davis Trimmer, a lieutenant with the Hillsborough, North Carolina, police department. Local law enforcement officials and Pentagon liaisons interviewed by Mother Jones all agree that the Defense Department always prefers to keep working equipment in circulation over warehousing it. Trimmer has twice requested permission to return three M14 rifles that are too heavy for practical use. But the North Carolina point person for the Pentagon insists that Hillsborough can’t get rid of the firearms until another police department volunteers to take them. Police in Woodfin, North Carolina, are facing the same problem as they try to return the town’s grenade launcher.
In fact, the first move for state liaisons when a police department wants to dump its military equipment is to alert the rest of the state’s police force that the item is up for grabs. This poses a moral dilemma for communities that are getting rid of their weapons and armored vehicle out of protest: ditching your MRAP just makes it another town’s problem.
“I have a lot of discomfort about that,” Davis says. “A lot.” Jarred by the clashes in Ferguson, the Davis city council voted in late August to come up with plans for getting rid of the city’s newly acquired MRAP—which arrived with the machine gun turret still attached.
But officials in Davis are finding that the cheapest way to unload the armored vehicle may be to ship it to a police department in a neighboring town. At best, says Davis, the Defense Department will ask the city to ship the vehicle to a police department out of state. “The bottom line is, if we send it back, we know what will happen to it. It will go on to be used in another community,” Davis says. “In the broader scheme of things, we will not have done anything but make a symbolic gesture.” At least two law enforcement agencies, both located in Northern California, have already expressed interest in the MRAP.
THE US SUPREME COURT’S DECISION (OR LACK THEREOF) ON GAY MARRIAGE, WHAT IT MEANS, AND WHY IT WAS SURPRISING
On Tuesday morning, the US Supreme Court unexpectedly chose not to hear any of the seven cases before them challenging states’ rights to ban gay marriage. Everyone (experts included) expected the high court to take up at least one of the cases.
By refusing to hear any of the cases, SCOTUS let gay marriage stand in Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Six additional states under the those states’ circuit courts will also be affected by this decision. This would mean that a majority of states (30) would boast legal gay marriage. (Hooray!)
There’s a lot of coverage on this, but if you only read one piece of reporting on this issue, Lyle Denniston’s analysis over at SCOTUSblog makes some interesting points.
For instance, Denniston lays out six reasons why the high court’s decision was surprising. Here are the first four:
First, for all seven petitions, both sides had urged the Court to grant review — a rare thing, and one that almost never fails to assure review.
Second, last year the Court had agreed to decide on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, but wound up not deciding that issue because of a procedural defect in the appeal in that case (involving California’s “Proposition 8″). That was a sign that the Justices were prepared to confront the basic issue, at least at that time.
Third, during this year, the Court itself has three times blocked lower court rulings striking down state bans — an indication that the Justices did not want same-sex marriages to occur until they had weighed in on their constitutionality.
Fourth, the Court surely knew what the practical impact would be of turning aside all seven petitions — that is, the early implementation of same-sex marriages in a good many more states, without the Court ever having ruled on the core question and, in fact, with the Court having never said anything, one way or the other, on that basic issue.
USA Today’s Brad Heath also has good coverage (and a nifty interactive map).
EXONEREES TO SHARE THEIR STORIES AT LOYOLA’S DTLA INNOCENCE DAY CELEBRATION
Today (Tuesday) five exonerated men will speak at an Innocence Day celebration co-hosted by Loyola Law School, Los Angeles’ Project for the Innocent and Death Penalty Focus. The speakers, Mario Rocha, Kash Register, Obie Anthony, Arthur Carmona, and Nick Yarris, have spent more than 80 years (combined) behind bars for crimes committed by someone else. (WLA has shared Mario Rocha’s story—here—and Kash Register’s—here.) The Project for the Innocent helped secure the release of both Kash Register and Obie Anthony, who had spent 34 years and 17 years, respectively, in prison while innocent.
The celebration will take place from 12:00-1:00p.m. at Loyola’s Downtown LA campus. You can find out more about the event on Project for the Innocent’s Facebook page.
they had something to do with the exoneration of one or two of them