Children tried as adults were sentenced to a little more than three years in prison on average for third-degree felonies — around 50% longer than the average sentence given to adults for the same class of offense. The vast majority of all felony charges are third-degree offenses, which are the lowest class of felony crimes and include burglary, some types of assault, drug possession and certain DUI offenses.
Children and adults had similar average sentences for more serious offenses that fall under first and second-degree felonies.
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.
Seriousness of charges isn’t necessarily the same as seriousness of crime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why in your theory doesn’t that happen for 1st and 2nd degree felonies?
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.
Could be that the crimes that lead to kids being tried as adults tend to be especially severe, warranting a longer sentence
The example listed, 40 years for armed robbery, seems definitely nuts. But by pure statistics, this isn’t necessarily a crazy result.
Nope.
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?