Yet, we cannot allow poverty to mitigate criminal punishment otherwise we potentially license or encourage people to commit crime. Rich people who commit crime are arguably more blameworthy than the poor who engage in the same conduct because the capacity of the rich to do otherwise is greater. Poverty is restrictive and often leads to frustration and resentment. Rich Offender, Poor Offender: Why It (Sometimes) Matters in Sentencing One is how Rich People usually get off easier than equally guilty Poor People. But there are other types of injustice in the Criminal Justice System. Every Democrat present voted for it, and every Republican voted against, but since there are 62 Dems and only 18 Republicans, the bill sailed through, 58 to 13.Īt first glance the concept of “adjusting” sentences as a form of compensation is simply nuts. Will AB 852 become law? The vote in the house was a perfect partisan split. For example, women are a lot more likely to break laws against prostitution or abortion. Do you think I’m being fanciful? How else can a judge prove he complied with this very clear law?ĪB 852 is supposed to protect BIPOCs, but there are other groups that can claim to be “disenfranchised” and “system-impacted.” Women. They’re not a “historically disenfranchised and system-impacted population.” In practical terms, I don’t see how this law can mean anything but clearly lighter sentences for blacks. But not when he sentences a white criminal because whites are not protected. So, what’s the BFCQ that justifies that 10-year sentence? Is 10 years the “narrowly tailored” penalty necessary to preserve civilization? A defense lawyer could demand a detailed BFCQ explanation every time a judge sentences a black or Hispanic. Remember: Disparate impact is “directly traceable” to racism in society, so it’s not blacks’ fault that they are so much more likely than whites to be third-time offenders.ĪB 852 says sentencing must consider this. Let’s say a judge sentences a black man to 10 years in the big house for his third conviction for armed robbery. AB 852 says the judge must consider disparate impact so as to “rectify racial bias” every time he has any leeway in handing down a sentence. Is the prohibition really necessary – in legal terms, is it narrowly tailored – to preserve civilization? Under Supreme Court precedent, there’s no reason blacks couldn’t ] require a BFCQ to justify any legal prohibition: prostitution, gambling, tax evasion, even murder. If laws against shoplifting disproportionately penalize blacks, we have to decide if civilization really requires those laws. Cities don’t use an explicit BFCQ test, but it’s implicit. Those laws have disparate impacts, but are they necessary for civilization? A lot of cities have decriminalized that behavior *only* because enforcing the law has a disparate impact.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |