Black and Hispanic defendants involved in federal court cases are less likely to get probation than white defendants, according to a new study.
Released by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Tuesday, the newest report highlights racial disparities in the court system. The data for the study consisted of the information of 229,444 defendants eligible for probation out of 3,000 people convicted for a felony or misdemeanor from 2017 to 2021. The researchers focused specifically on guidelines that the judges used to determine sentences.
According to the report from the Commision, Black men were found to be approximately 23% less likely to receive probation when compared to white men. As for Hispanic men, they were found to be nearly 27% less likely to be sentenced with probation compared to white men.
For women, Black women and Hispanic women were 11.2% and 29.7% less likely to receive probation when compared to white women.
The report by the Commision also studied the lengths of the sentences. Without accounting for the individuals who received probation, Black and Hispanic men were 4.7% and 1.9% respectively more likely to be administered a longer sentence than white men.
Once defendants given probation were included, the length of probations for Black men and Hispanic men increased; whereas Hispanic men had 11.2% longer sentences, Black men had approximately 13.4% longer sentences.
In a statement, Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the Chairman of the Commision, highlighted the report’s findings, emphasizing the need to advocate for more change to address these disparities.
“While this study’s insights into the roots of those differences is limited by the unavailability of certain data—such as that regarding decisions by law enforcement, prosecutors, other justice system actors, and other relevant history and characteristics of the individuals sentenced—its findings offer important information for practitioners, researchers, and others looking to make sentencing more just,” said Judge Reeves.
The results of the study come amidst a publicized Supreme Court decision made against the case of Michael Johnson, a man in Illinois that has been imprisoned since 2007.
Per Huff Post, the Supreme Court rejected Johnson’s appeal of an earlier court decision; they rejected his claim that his Eighth Amendment was violated by the lack of outdoor time and solitary confinement he was given.
Justices Ketanji Brown, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all promptly dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting the fact that Johnson has been put into solitary confinement and has had his exercise rights restricted for minor infractions. Johnson also struggles from multiple mental health issues, including bipolar disorder and severe depression.
In a public statement, the representative of Johnson showed their appreciation for the dissent while also speaking against the decision made in his client’s case.
“We are grateful that Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan recognized the panel majority’s ‘indisputable legal error,’” said attorney Daniel Greenfield in a statement. “At the same time, we are saddened to live in an era where such immense suffering is acceptable to any federal judge, let alone the majority of a circuit panel.”
“Three years of 24/7 solitary confinement unrelieved by any opportunity for exercise would have appalled the Founders,” he added. “It should be no less shocking to us today.”
