The US Sentencing System Disparities and Discrimination

Introduction
A defendant that has successfully been prosecuted and then found guilty will have their sentence determined and read out by a judge at the sentencing hearing. The sentencing hearing can only take place after the criminal conviction. During the sentencing hearing, the judge will have to decide on a sentence or a punishment based on the maximum and minimum sentences for the particular crime, as stipulated in the penal code. While all this sounds straightforward, there have been many cases recorded of discrimination and disparity in sentencing (Spohn, 2008). 
With regards to sentencing, a disparity exists in two ways – when offenders who are different get the same punishment, and when similar offenders get different punishments. More specifically, a disparity exists when judges impose the same punishment/ sentence on offenders who have very different crimes and criminal histories and when judges impose different punishments on offenders who have carried out identical crimes and have identical criminal past. Sentencing discrimination is a bit different from sentencing disparity, and it exists in several ways. First, sentencing discrimination exists when legally irrelevant characteristics are taken into consideration by judges when they are imposing sentences. Second, it exists when judges impose harsher sentences on male offenders than on female offenders for similar crimes. Third, it exists when judges impose harsher sentences on offenders who are poor than on offenders who are rich for similar crimes. Lastly, it exists when judges impose harsher sentences on offenders who are persons of color than on Caucasian offenders for similar crimes (Spohn, 2008). 
The Supreme Court Building has a phrase engraved on it. The phrase reads, “Equal justice under the law.” However, for the poor, for persons of color, and many other groups, this phrase does not mean much. This is because they face discrimination at sentencing and other stages of the criminal justice system. For example, the poor in the United States in America are more likely to be arrested, more likely to get low-quality legal representation, and more likely to get maximum sentences than the rich. The paper’s goal is to investigate sentencing discrimination and disparities in the American criminal justice system (Spohn, 2008). 
Sentencing Disparities and Discrimination
Despite the increased focus on discrimination and leadership changes at the federal justice department, disparities and discrimination persist at different levels of the American criminal justice system. This, in no way, means that the American criminal justice system is set up to discriminate against certain populations in the United States intentionally. What it means is that certain populations are more likely to face discrimination at the different levels of the criminal justice system. For example, it has been found that African Americans are more likely to be subjected to traffic stops than Caucasians. They are three times more prone to be subjected to a traffic stop than white Americans. It has also been found that African Americans are more likely to be imprisoned and to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts (Mauer, 2010).
Discrimination and disparities also exist in many jurisdictions with regards to how the “war on drugs” is conducted. It is now well known that discrimination and disparities in how the war on drugs is conducted have led to many persons of color being incarcerated. Discrimination can be seen in the fact that the war is focused on neighborhoods with African Americans and Latin Americans. This has resulted in the disproportionate increase of persons of color in detention centers and facing drug-related charges. And sentencing disparities and discrimination have resulted in more persons of color serving longer or harsher sentences when found guilty of drug-related offenses. This is how there are disproportionately more African Americans and Latin Americans in prisons across the country (Mauer, 2010).
To put the above information into context, in 2005, of the total drug users in the United States, only 14 percent were African Americans. However, nearly 35 percent of the people arrested by the police for drug-related offenses were African Americans, and over 50 percent of the people sentenced for drug-related offenses were of the same race. The above statistics show several things. They show that the war on drugs is irrationally focused on African Americans. They show that police officer are more likely to arrest African Americans for drug-related offenses. And they show that African Americans are more likely to be sentenced for drug offenses. In short, they show that there are sentencing discrimination and other forms of discrimination against African Americans at various levels of the American criminal justice system (Mauer, 2010).
Factors Influencing of Criminal Justice Sentencing
Race heavily influences criminal justice sentencing. Several studies and reports have shown that racial discrimination at sentencing has led to sentencing discrimination resulting in shorter sentences for Caucasians and longer or harsher sentences for African Americans and Latin Americans. In other words, white Americans are less likely to receive longer and harsher sentences than racial minorities (Hessick, 2010).
In addition to racial discrimination, many studies also show that gender influences criminal justice sentencing. The studies show that men are more likely to receive harsher sentences than women in the American criminal justice system. Leniency towards female offenders has nowadays become the norm. Gender-based sentencing discrimination is especially frequent in federal courts. Only 15 percent of all the people charged with federal crimes are women, and only 7 percent of all federal inmates are women. So women are less likely to be charged with federal crimes and less likely to end up in prison even if charge. Gender-based sentencing discrimination is more common than race-based sentencing discrimination (Hessick, 2010).
Both gender and race affect sentencing. However, the interaction of these status characteristics also differentiates sentencing outcomes. For instance, it has been demonstrated that white females tend to receive less severe sentences compared to Hispanic and African American women. While Hispanic and African American women tend to get harsher sentences compared to white females, they receive less severe sentences compared to Hispanic and African American males (Daly & Tonry, 1997). Class or socioeconomic status also influences criminal justice sentencing. However, not many thorough research studies have looked at sentencing discrimination or disparities with regard to class/socioeconomic status (Farrell et al., 2010).
Warranted Versus Unwarranted Discrimination and Disparity in Sentencing
Some sentencing disparities are logical and justifiable and are, therefore, warranted. For example, while it might seem unfair that the place/ jurisdiction where a defendant’s case is heard and decided determines the sentence he or she will get, differences in criminal justice resources and laws can result in inter-jurisdictional sentencing disparities. Moreover, in both state and federal court systems, judges only have the authority to sentence within the minimum and maximum penalty limits set by law for specific crimes. If for example, the minimum and maximum penalty limits are between five and seven years for a burglary crime in one state and between eight and ten years for the same crime in a different state, then offenders committed for the crime in the two states will receive different sentences; and this cannot be considered as unwarranted disparity or discrimination (Spohn, 2008). 
Regional and jurisdictional differences in values and attitudes toward certain crimes can also create sentencing discrimination and disparity. For example, opinion polls have revealed that many people and communities in the Western United States favor marijuana legalization. Therefore, if the judges in the Western United States mirror the attitudes of the communities in which they reside, the sentences they will give for marijuana-related offenses will most likely be less severe than those given by judges residing among people that do not favor marijuana legalization. Opinion polls also reveal that there are many urban Americans who believe crime is a big problem. In contrast, only a few rural Americans believe crime is a big problem. Therefore, judges in urban areas who most likely also believe crime is a big problem are likelier to impose harsher penalties than judges in rural areas who believe do not believe crime is a big problem (Spohn, 2008). 
So there are inter-jurisdictional sentencing disparities and discriminations, and they are somewhat warranted. But while inter-jurisdictional sentencing disparities are logical and justifiable, intra-jurisdictional disparities are more questionable. However, it can be argued that the American criminal justice system and most criminal justice systems in the world try to individualize punishment, and it is up to a judge’s discretion to decide the punishment within the penalty limits. These things can lead to different sentences for the same crime within a jurisdiction. As long as different sentences for a crime within a jurisdiction are arrived at utilizing a legitimate criterion, they can be regarded as warranted (Spohn, 2008). They are only unwarranted and discriminatory if they are informed by race, gender, and class instead of legitimate reasons.
Therefore, there are sentencing disparities that are warranted and others that are not warranted. It is believed that allowing judges to decide sentences is what encourages discrimination and leads to the poor being punished more severely than the rich, men being punished more severely than women, and persons of color being punished more severely than whites (Spohn, 2008). 
Solutions to Sentencing Discrimination and Disparities
It is very difficult to get a constitutional amendment to reduce or eliminate racial sentencing disparities. A standardized system that, at its core, includes downward departures in sentencing integrates two ideas that appear incompatible – minimized judicial discretion and the taking into account of mitigating factors and offender characteristics. The key to this system is numerically standardizing offender characteristics and mitigating factors and allowing judges only to use the system to determine a sentence. This system would be reducing discrimination and would be based on evidence if all offender characteristics and mitigating factors are properly numerically weighted (Smith, 2006).
If a standardized system were designed for judges to consult and evaluate characteristics and factors in their cases, they would make their judgments based on the information they derive from the system. For example, the system could be such that if a certain characteristic or factor is present, a judge is required to reduce the maximum sentence by a specified number of weeks or months. The specified number of weeks will be attached to all the characteristics that need to be considered during standardization. It will be attached based on each characteristic’s or factor’s weight. A judge will only retain minimal discretion in such a system by being allowed to depart from what is recommended by the system only if they provide an official and written explanation of why they want to depart from what is recommended. And the explanation should never be the race of the offender (Yang, 2015).
Adopting the sentencing system detailed above would have multiple benefits. First, it would virtually remove judicial discretion because judges will have to consult a standardized system during sentencing. This will significantly reduce racial bias and prejudices and probably do away with sentencing discrimination and disparities. Judges will have a much-reduced ability to impose sentences based on their biases, ideals, and beliefs. Second, if the sentencing system is well-designed, it will ensure that only the factors and characteristics that are warranted and very important are considered during sentencing and not trivial factors or whose consideration is racist (Yang, 2015).
Third, if the sentencing system, the mitigating factors, and the offender characteristics are properly designed, they will reduce racial sentencing disparity without considering race. This will automatically result in all types of people being likely to receive the same sentence for the same crime. The reduced racial disparities will also help to increase the confidence of minorities, such as Hispanics and African Americans in the criminal justice system (Yang, 2015).
Lastly, the sentencing system would be in agreement with what community activists, commentators, and legislators are saying right now, which is the fact that offender characteristics and mitigating factors ought to be considered. The many benefits of a new sentencing system can also help to reduce prison overcrowding, cut rehabilitation costs, result in petty offenders being warned rather than punished by the system, and equalize the prison system by treating everyone fairly (Yang, 2015).
Conclusion
The American criminal justice system has many disparities. The way the system handles white Americans is different from how it handles people of color. Colored communities are more likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be given harsher or longer sentences. This has resulted in a disproportionately higher number of persons of color in prisons, particularly African Americans. Sentencing disparities and sentencing discrimination are among the biggest issues that the American criminal justice system has to deal with. A new sentencing system that reduces judicial discretion and makes judges use a standardized system that considers offenders characteristics and mitigation factors will reduce discrimination and disparities during sentencing.
References
Daly, K., & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime and Justice, 22, 201-252. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/1147574
Farrell, A., Ward, G., & Rousseau, D. (2010). Intersections of gender and race in federal sentencing: examining court contexts and the effects of representative court authorities. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 1, 85.
Hessick, C. B. (2010). Race and gender as explicit sentencing factors. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 1, 127.
Mauer, M. (2010). Justice for all challenging racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Hum. Rts., 37, 14.
Smith, D. (2006). Narrowing Racial Disparities in Sentencing through a System of Mandatory Downward Departures. The Modern American, Summer 2006, 32–37.
Spohn, C. (2008). How do judges decide?: the search for fairness and justice in punishment. Sage Publications.
Yang, C. S. (2015). Free at last? Judicial discretion and racial disparities in federal sentencing. The Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 75-111.