The numerator is the number of incarcerated criminals -- which they don't know because they don't know the immigration status of every criminal they collect. The denominator is the number of illegal immigrants, which, again, no one knows.
So not even for the state of Texas. No one knows exactly what the illegal incarceration rate is, much less the crime rate. They also make a point of arguing that incarceration rates parallel crime rates, but again no one can know if that is true to the same degree for illegals as for other groups. In fact, blacks serve longer sentences when they are caught for crimes, supposedly because they're back, but no one can verify that it's not because they commit worse crimes or because they "don't do themselves any favors" in court. So blacks should have relatively more incarcerated per crime committed.
blacks serve more time on average, even for the same crime, because the most effective mechanism for crime reduction was figured out in the 90s... amplifiers like 3-strikes laws.
you can't get 3-strikes in a single case for a reason. justice systems seek to give people a chance, but when someone has shown repeatedly that they disregard the law, it's usually better just to incarcerate them indefinitely. physically remove them from society, and crime falls. the incredible majority of people in jail/prison are not first time offenders.
the wokies don't want to accept that blacks are reported to commit significantly more crime than everyone else, even by other blacks. so when a black person commits more crime, and 3-strikes laws amplify the sentencing duration based on having a prior criminal record, of course they're going to get more.
blacks serve more time on average, even for the same crime, because the most effective mechanism for crime reduction was figured out in the 90s... amplifiers like 3-strikes laws.
Right. Amplifiers are what I was thinking of. The "same crime" often covers a lot of ground, and that's why judges have discretion. Blacks are more violent, so they get longer sentences. They also suck at defending themselves in court. Lawyers know.
It seems like most crimes are down-charged. I see a lot of assault charges for what clearly was armed robbery and definitely involved some kind of battery. That's easier for the prosecutor to prove. But then when it comes to sentencing, the facts are the facts.
in state court, when a plea is agreed to, the prosecutor and defense negotiate the sentence. the judge doesn't have to accept it, but 99% of the time it's rubber stamped. in state court, the down-charged crimes are usually more related to certainty of the evidence, risk in the case, political careers involved of the prosecutor, and cost to the state in actually taking it to trial. when there's no genuine issue of dispute, one side usually folds, and usually that's the defendant. prosecutor will occasionally negotiate down the charge, but usually much less than federal, because they have near total control over negotiating the sentence.
in federal court, this does not exist. the prosecutor and defense can only negotiate to what the prosecutor ADVISES the sentence should be. the judge still has full authority within federal sentencing guidelines, and the defendant is fucked if the federal judge is having a bad day. this is why in federal court, pleas are down-charged far more often... because the defense much less likely to agree to plea to a full charge that has much higher ranges on prison time, when the judge can nuke them after the fact.
Fucking crime rate data.
The numerator is the number of incarcerated criminals -- which they don't know because they don't know the immigration status of every criminal they collect. The denominator is the number of illegal immigrants, which, again, no one knows.
So not even for the state of Texas. No one knows exactly what the illegal incarceration rate is, much less the crime rate. They also make a point of arguing that incarceration rates parallel crime rates, but again no one can know if that is true to the same degree for illegals as for other groups. In fact, blacks serve longer sentences when they are caught for crimes, supposedly because they're back, but no one can verify that it's not because they commit worse crimes or because they "don't do themselves any favors" in court. So blacks should have relatively more incarcerated per crime committed.
This all, of course, conveniently ignores that they're all criminals for entering the country illegally.
HOW DARE YOU
No criminal is illegal!
blacks serve more time on average, even for the same crime, because the most effective mechanism for crime reduction was figured out in the 90s... amplifiers like 3-strikes laws.
you can't get 3-strikes in a single case for a reason. justice systems seek to give people a chance, but when someone has shown repeatedly that they disregard the law, it's usually better just to incarcerate them indefinitely. physically remove them from society, and crime falls. the incredible majority of people in jail/prison are not first time offenders.
the wokies don't want to accept that blacks are reported to commit significantly more crime than everyone else, even by other blacks. so when a black person commits more crime, and 3-strikes laws amplify the sentencing duration based on having a prior criminal record, of course they're going to get more.
Right. Amplifiers are what I was thinking of. The "same crime" often covers a lot of ground, and that's why judges have discretion. Blacks are more violent, so they get longer sentences. They also suck at defending themselves in court. Lawyers know.
It seems like most crimes are down-charged. I see a lot of assault charges for what clearly was armed robbery and definitely involved some kind of battery. That's easier for the prosecutor to prove. But then when it comes to sentencing, the facts are the facts.
in state court, when a plea is agreed to, the prosecutor and defense negotiate the sentence. the judge doesn't have to accept it, but 99% of the time it's rubber stamped. in state court, the down-charged crimes are usually more related to certainty of the evidence, risk in the case, political careers involved of the prosecutor, and cost to the state in actually taking it to trial. when there's no genuine issue of dispute, one side usually folds, and usually that's the defendant. prosecutor will occasionally negotiate down the charge, but usually much less than federal, because they have near total control over negotiating the sentence.
in federal court, this does not exist. the prosecutor and defense can only negotiate to what the prosecutor ADVISES the sentence should be. the judge still has full authority within federal sentencing guidelines, and the defendant is fucked if the federal judge is having a bad day. this is why in federal court, pleas are down-charged far more often... because the defense much less likely to agree to plea to a full charge that has much higher ranges on prison time, when the judge can nuke them after the fact.