“Judges appointed by Republican presidents gave longer sentences to black defendants and shorter ones to women than judges appointed by Democrats, according to a new study that analyzed data on more than half a million defendants,” the New York Times reports. “The study was conducted by two professors at Harvard Law School, Alma Cohen and Crystal S. Yang. They examined the sentencing practices of about 1,400 federal trial judges over more than 15 years.”
So another way to put this would be "blacks get shorter sentences from dem judges." Like most race hustler complaints, raw data tend to conceal important details.
Since the unscrupulous race baiting OP won’t cite the original study - let it be known that this “longer sentence” differential is THREE months for an average federal sentence time of 55-74 months. Yeah, I read the original published study. So you’re talking a three to five percent differential - which is not enough to draw a meaningful statistical conclusion. More disengenuous confirmation bias.
"according to a new study" That's from my post, the study was hyperlinked. Try to learn how the internet works grandpa, this is the second time you have made an ass out of yourself.
Yeah, and I read the Harvard Study and you are a race baiting Maoist idiot if you think that a 3 month differential in a 55 to 74 month sentence has any significance.
Right, a peer reviewed study published by the New York Times is 'race baiting' because for some an AVERAGE of EXTRA three months in prison is inconsequential. Facts are facts, just because you think that spending extra three months in prison is insignificant shows your real racist nature. Now I can see why you ballwash 'New York Five' Trump all day, bringing up Maxine Waters, lying about MS13 and rest of the nonsense.
You must be Maxine Waters because a real Russian Troll would have enough mathematical competency to understand that a 3 percent differential is not significant enough variance to make such a hyperbolic claim of party affiliated institutional racism. Peer review for studies with a political aim is also called confirmation bias. As an example, note how many expert “peers” got the 2016 general election flat wrong. There are quite a few Republican appointed judges who in fact turn out to be quite left of center - one of them sits on the Supreme Court right now.
Hey grandpa, I didn't compile the PEER REVIEWED study and then I didn't publish it in a MAJOR newspaper, if you think three month difference is nothing then take it up with them, why the heck are you bothering me with your bullshit editorial? For me, even an extra day is prejudice and bigotry but hey, I am not a Trump supporter. Also, I am not interested in your 'definitions' given you were caught outright lying about a simple statement Pelosi made, what credibility do you have to judge anything? As for 2016 election, experts were not aware of the criminal collusion Trump campaign was indulging in, his own DOJ is now criminally investigating the entire campaign - they have already indicted many including the campaign manager. Maybe a three month stretch for Trump would do no harm to make up for the treason he committed.