Actually, microlectures are NOT just what they sound like. This implies an abbreviated lecture (ie., Ted talk or Khan Academy). Instead these are strategically designed 60 second presentations incorporating metaphors and keywords, designed to arouse curiosity. Learning takes place when the learner actively participates in knowledge acquisition and synergy.

2raumwohnung: Nacht und Tag [o]

VÖ: 16.6.2017

Apple Music / iTunes

Learn more about MaltaFiles and projects of the EICnetwork here: https://eic.network/projects/malta-files

I feel these two proud black womens on this 2 mins video, because to us black people all lives matter but in general blacks lives matter to us the most. One question, the white people forgot that black people build America , so why is we treated like s**t.

The government of America isn’t doing anything to stop this, its like they with it too, a white cop kills a black male his badge get suspended. The cop don’t even go to trial, but the other way around us black people get 25 years to life in prison .

Go seems to be more focused on finding and controlling tactical positions.

So interesting the number of possibilities form a seemingly basic game. I found some calculations of the number of possible legal moves in a game on a 19x19 board at Sensei's Library, an affinity space for Go players. They report that there are 2.082 × 10^170 leagal moves, for me that is mind blowing.

Easy to learn; hard to master

I has thought Go was Japanese, thanks for the heads up.

More cool!

So this is why firefox i slow?

I can learn a lot from this blog.denny make a easy way to Caffe.

Catherine's post here is still one of the best summaries of the point of Visitors and Residents workshops--this one was conducted by me and Dave White, at Catherine's invitation. This post is a great "outside eye" description of what we do, when we talk to rooms of people about V&R

My colleague James Clay has a series of posts on his blog talking around, and about some of the work we've done together, or of mine that he's commented on in some way.

ascknaslcknasc

Not the best source or argumentation. But these are the key ones we may remember from Eaton, Konner, and Shostack

test

I'll bring up again the subjective nature of rational and perception. Human capital, or social capital, assumes that the rational is concurrent with all actors. That's not the case as can be exemplified in numerous interactions online via Catfish type interactions. For those directly involved in those situations the behavior exhibited is totally rational and acceptable. Those outside of it potentially find amusement, and therefore apply that capital in a different way. Are both wrong, right, or is one distinctly correct over the other? Ten years ago the collective would argue that the norm leans towards the behavior is not rational. Now, with more and more solidarity with internet interaction occurring what's the norm? I feel it's less convincing from ten years ago. That lens is ever changing according to social norms, and norms applied to one's self.

The free rider in this theory can actually be the intellectual personality that we are studying can't it?. What's wrong with the free riding actor? There is no such thing as a utopia, so why would we expect the collective to be all encompassing? This part of the theory I wasn't a fan about. As generations cross over and old methodologies morph into new ones, the free riders are required to question the system. Why can't the free riders be the actors to help keep the collective in check? Just food for thought.

Rational choice is exactly that, rational. Defining what is rational does not have a universal standard. So as the weight test of pros, cons, and best decision process occur in the actor(s) minds, what is rational to one actor may not be rational to another. The mental scale isn't one that can truly be measured. Rationality is subjective in nature and it's important that as decisions are made that are considered against the "norm" effort is made to first define the rational before perusing any further.

Shakespeare is a great example for illustrating presentation of self and it's relation to rational choice/exchange theory, IMO.

Yep, and here is the potential cost or benefit to actors, which is decided based on their control of self presentation and their success at the theatricality of interaction. In a way, both are assets/goods and are costs/benefits. (If your reflected appraisals turn negative, your confidence may suffer, affecting your success with social "acting.")

Here we are, presentation. I think control of self-presentation and image is a "good" one owns and seeks to retain control over. Personal capital, if we want to go there. I appreciate considering these concepts alongside Exchange Theory.

I find parallels with the free rider issue to my own experience with workplace dynamics. I work in a bureaucracy which is especially non-social, which creates little collective cohesiveness or interests, except for justifying each's job within the bureaucracy -- an idea which Collins detailed heavily in his description of the evolution of universities and governments. This provides incentive for free riders, but little ability of groups (not being social or cohesive) to react to that behavior.

While rational choice provides valuable perspective, I have a lot of difficulty believing we calculate this way, explicitly. I think much of the calculation, for many people, is present but occurs on the gut level -- either way, our mental scales are skewed (Dozens of examples to point to, but I am thinking to an extent about the multiracial study and how monoracial online daters might justify interactions which reveal biases.) Exchange Theory, critically elevates and complicates this with the less tangible social "goods" -- status, relationship dynamics, knowledge, etc. -- which affect emotional and intuited responses.

(Dramaturgy!) I like the word actors specifically because it implies both the emotional/social (acting, self-presentation, rituals/ceremony, convolution in interactions) and also the rational -- we're just people, doing things.

Dramaturgy! I think?

This article seems to simplify the free rider problem by implying that it's the only rational choice. ADE offers several solutions that fit within rational choice theory: 1) selective incentives that reward individuals who bear the cost of the goods, 2) intangible benefits of participation, 3) enforcing participation or using negative sanctions for not contributing to the public good.

Coleman's discussion of norms applies to why altruism is a rational individual choice if a society chooses to value philanthropy, promoting it with positive consequences (good reputation) or imposing sanctions (disapproval and bad reputation).

In ADE, page 218, line 22-23, a very valid and important consideration for all rational choice theorists- explaining how groups and more perplexingly successful groups form from a group of individuals when rational thought places more weight on cost than benefit- why would an individual act out against rational thought. Critics of Rational Choice Theory state that not persons do not always act out of rational thought and emotion impacts their rational thought processes. An example being those who decide to eat undercooked food when rational thinking says not to

evidence of rational thought and the ability to weigh costs from benefits

Per Coleman from ADE, the "free rider" will engage in a cost/benefit analysis to determine their level of engagement in an activity based upon rational thought. The two examples of involvement in environmental efforts and the lack of working classes in the U.S. to act collectively to redistribute wages are great examples. Another example that comes to mind since I am involved is one's decision to join the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). There is argument to this day the bay has not in many years made significant improvement and trying to persuade others to join the CBF is linked to "free riders". Those considering joining the CBF weight the benefits of joining versus the monetary costs (membership dues) and ultimately determine if they will join or not based upon what they will receive versus what it will cost in terms of time, money, etc.

As Pryor writes there are various sociological theories that apply to the production of capital and the triangle diagram works well as a representation. The Rational Choice theorist would examine the diagram and view individual choices taking place at each level to determine the greater effect(s) on the generation of human capital but this diagram functions most appropriately to diagram Symbolic Interactionism and show how individual components function as a group to generate in this case the phenomena of human capital

In reflection of the video it is important to mention that critics of Rational Choice Theory would say that not all persons engage in rational thought and additionally persuasions brought about by factors other than individual choice may affect decisions such as social pressures.

Mirroring much of Rucha's comments Coleman discusses trust as a means of a decision making process based upon evaluation of others' judgment and performance. Placing trust in someone is part of the process of maximizing personal gain by placing trust in another. Important to note per ADE and Coleman's examination of trust, that rewards for trust are not equally distributed but rather according to social dynamics such as sex, gender, and class to name a few. The topic of trust includes two key players, the trustor and trustee. The trustor would be placing trust in another while the trustee is the person acting as confidant or trusted person. ADE cites the example of Julia and Malika, whom are involved in a financial situation of trust. Another example appropriate for studying digital sociology would be the level of trust established between purchasers (trustors) and sellers (trustees) in a digital exchange of information online.

This also reminds me of Michael Hechter's article on Sociological Rational Choice theory in 1997. In describing how members of church face a collective action problem, Hechter explains that strict churches often impose 'costly and esoteric' requirements on their members, which helps them solve 'free riders' problem as only those who are really committed to church will join the church, making churches more successful and strong.

Exchange theory can be thought of as the application of rational choice theory based upon the various levels of social interaction, involving a cost/benefit analysis and involving or weighing the socially approvable behavior or socially unapprovable behavior while seeking to maiximize profits

In addition it is important to mention from reading ADE a basic principle of Homan's that individual choices that result in action(s) are occur along the continuum of rationality and individual to collectiveness so to better understand Rational Choice Theory it includes individual choice based upon rewards and costs and the choices one makes occur as a result of a level of rational thinking and individual or collective choice.

ADE and Collins both discuss the problem of 'free rider' in their books. This issue was formulated by Mancur Olson in 1965. Olivia does a great job of explaining how rational actors 'free ride'. In my opinion, many of us are guilty of 'free riding'. At least, I am. The basic assumption behind it is, "whether I make a contribution to the cause or not, the output will not change, then why to bother?" Collins explains the 'free rider' problem by giving an example of free bus service and ADE describes by giving an example of the fight for the protection of natural environment. In a rational mind, it makes sense to not contribute to some cause if the benefits will be free anyway when other people contribute to it. Olivia doesn't mention here but both Collins and ADE explain the different solutions offered by rational choice theorists which can help prevent 'free rider' problem. For example, selective incentives - when those who participate are rewarded exclusively, and negatively sanctioning those who do not participate in the cause to the public good.

ADE provides the same example for describing the role of trustor and trustee in an exchange. Olivia does a great job by presenting this example, as in my opinion, all of us can relate to it because all of us have been through similar kind of situation where we had to weigh our gains and losses. If the gain in this situation outweighs the possible losses, one might consider the risk worth taking. The 'trust' in another person depends on the rational calculations which are based on the information available on another person (their reputation of being trustworthy). In the case of Julia and Malika, Malika will be able to make her decision based on a rational calculation of if she can place a bet on Julia's trustworthiness. As given in ADE, it is of advantage for Julia to be trustworthy to receive benefits ($200) and it is of advantage for Malika to trust Julia to when possible gain outweighs the possible loss.

The content in ADE emphasizes that exchange theorists focus their attention on the strategic decision-making of the individuals and how these particular decisions can have an impact on social relationships within small groups. On the other hand, rational choice theorists examine how these strategic decisions and rational interactions between the individuals can have an influence on group dynamics in broader social conditions by "producing group solidarity, norms, and control of resources" (ADE).

Geographical limiters and case studies.

Track down citations that look interesting to you.

Sub-question and division in the topic. Also specifies a particular population in the issue. Maybe you wish to focus only on nonviolent drug offenses.

Library (originally from Mozilla) for building components based on the W3C Web Components specs

I think that this ties nicely with what is going on digitally too- there are a lot of view point as to what is right and wrong.

And there are really none for all this chatting and such that we do in this digital affinity space- hmmm

And I keep reading things and forget to look at videos, memes and everything else. digital Story telling encompasses so much and there are so many different ways to go about it.

I too was a little confused about this, do people really go in a change what they wrote in a blog because or for a comment? I would think that it would spark another convo, but not editing the current. I fell like that is like saying, um forget I said that during a conversation and then editing in something else, we don't forget, and really it would be hard for me not to focus on it then!

Of course not, we all have our own 'hang' ups. For some blogging is easy where annotating is harder, it is all a learning process! Learn on!

Yes! Some great opportunities to learn some new vocabulary and broaden our digital horizons

This was so much fun....I could have done a billion things... wevideo.com/view/688299489

Right here?

https://soundcloud.com/emilywu883/tdc1611-the-sounds-of-five

atleast this research is being used in a good way.

Is this still an issue?

Gives the info revolving around the fire escape incident.

International families can stay in touch with their family in another country

Finding people that are like you

Specification accessible ici:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html

Are we really that lazy? or have we found out a way to reach the masses?

Got you there, JD.

Very well explained!

Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2010). Drawing Blood from Stones: Monetary Sanctions, Punishment, and Inequality in the Contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology 115, 1753-1799.

In “Drawing Blood from Stones: Monetary Sanctions, Punishment, and Inequality in the Contemporary United States,” by Harris, Evans, and Beckett, the issue of legal financial obligations (LFO’s) and their effects on impoverished communities is discussed in detail. The authors begin the article by stating that the US incarceration rate is 6-12 times higher than those in comparable western European countries (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1753). The authors also point out that “Between 1980 and 2007, the total number of people under criminal justice supervision- which includes the incarceration and those on probation and parole- jumped from roughly 2 million to over 7 million” (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1754). These statistics are important to note, because the amount of LFO’s imposed on defendants who commit crimes, and those who are simply accused of crimes are increasing nationwide.

The method the authors used in their research was to analyze data from the Survey of Inmates in the State and Federal Correctional Facilities and from the Bureau of Justice Statistics data on sentencing. They also drew interviews with 50 Washington State residents living with felony convictions to determine how legal debt affects those who have it (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 210, 1766).

The majority of criminal punishment is concentrated in impoverished urban areas, and nearly 60% of young black men who have not graduated from high school have at some point been behind prison bars (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1754). LFO’s are concentrated on poor areas with high populations of minority citizens. The authors state on page 1755,

“…The U.S. penal system is implicated in the accumulation of disadvantage and the reproduction of inequality for a number of reasons: the growing number of (mainly poor) people whose lives it touches, the impact of criminal conviction on employment and earnings…mass incarcerations’ destabilizing effects on families in urban communities, and the widespread imposition of ‘collateral’ or ‘invisible’ sanctions that transform punishment from a temporally limited experience to a long-term status” (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1755).

LFO’s not only include general court fees, but fines and restitution orders. Not only is the national average according to the author’s research exceed $7,000 per offender, but all fines are subject to interest, surcharges, and collection fees (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1759).

Furthermore, we have even gone so far as to impose fees on those utilizing indigent defense. Meaning, those who need a public defender because they cannot afford a private attorney, must pay a user fee regardless of the Gideon v. Wainwright decision (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1758). That was decided in Oregon- a liberal state. Additionally, in Washington, Superior Court judges can now impose up to 17 fees on felony defendants when they are sentenced. In New York, they can impose 19 different fees (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1758).

This is all important to the issue of impoverished communities because LFO’s are affecting the innocent sometimes more than those incarcerated or sentenced. This is because most defendants have children, for whom they have been mandated to pay child support for. When they cannot pay because of legal fees, their children and overall family health and structure suffer and deteriorate (Harris, Evans & Beckett, 2010, 1760). This only perpetuates the cycle of poverty and family disenfranchisement that is common in poor urban areas. LFO’s are in essence, helping to keep poor areas poor.

In John Crank’s book "Imagining Justice," there is a section entitled "Ethnicity, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System," which explores the issue of injustices throughout the criminal justice system that emerge on the basis of race. Crank starts off the section by immediately stating the contemporary issues surrounding this topic. On criminality and immigration, he states “When criminality among immigrants are examined, no clear pattern of behavior emerges. Criminal behavior, when identified, appears to be contextualized by the process of immigration and resettlement” (Crank, 2003, 261). Crank goes on to suggest that the reasons for someone’s immigration can play a role in determining whether or not people will commit crimes.

Crank goes on to explain that generalizations are made about immigrant populations and how they have adapted to American culture. Crank attributes the emergence and desistence of crime to three factors: the age structure, the loss of traditional authority, and the degree of social cohesion (Crank, 2003, 262). The age structure refers to the fact that there are a high proportion of immigrant youth to each immigrant adult which can mean that high rates of youth may be predisposed to crime during their socialization. The loss of traditional authority refers to a parent’s inability to maintain control within the adaptation process- which is difficult because it is a challenge to traditional norms for them. And third, the degree of social cohesion, refers to the availability of community resources within immigrant communities that allow youth and immigrant adults to ease into their communities while being able to practice traditional norms (Crank, 2003, 262). All of these factors play an important role in adaptability for immigrant populations according to Crank.

Without proper modes of adaptation, Crank argues, criminal activity emerges. One interesting fact found in this section in relation to sentencing, is when Crank states, “Seemingly neutral case processing practices, especially concerning pretrial confinement decisions and sentence reductions for guilty pleas, operate to the systematic disadvantage of members of minority groups” (Crank, 2003, 265). Crank lists these disadvantages as, “pretrial confinement is typically aimed at those least likely to appear for trial. Those least likely to appear are those who lead unsettled lives, lack permanent residents and stable jobs. This falls disproportionately on disadvantaged minority groups” (Crank, 2003, 265). Lastly and most relevantly, “minority members are less likely to receive favorable sentence reductions for guilty pleas. Tonry suggests that this may stem from the distrust minorities have a country’s justice system and a belief that they are treated unfairly… This means that defendants who plead guilty earlier in justice proceedings receive shorter sentences” (Crank, 2003, 265).

Crank goes on to discuss the false assumptions surrounding immigrants in the US. For example, there is the misconception that all Latin Americans are Mexican. This is of course not true, and there is a very diverse groups of Latino/a immigrants in the US. Crank states, “Mexicans make up 61.2 percent of the Latino population in the United States. However, only about 33 percent of Mexicans are foreign born- most are resident United States citizens” (Crank, 2003, 266). Crank goes on to discuss the political ideologies surrounding assimilation and immigration. There is an ongoing attempt to learn how to adjust and assimilate in a new society. I think this- the difficulty of adaptation- is the main point of this section, and this is Crank’s argument for why and how the justice system affects immigrants. This was an interesting section, although I am not sure it adequately discusses how unfairly immigrants are treated by our criminal justice system- particularly in terms of sentencing measures.

Crank, John P. “Imagining Justice” (2003). Pages 261-276. Anderson Publishing Co. Cincinatti, OH. Print.

“The Rise and Fall of the Indeterminate Sentencing Ideal” from "But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry" by Jeremy Travis. Pages 7-20, 2005.

Chapter 1 of "But They All Come Back" by Jeremy Travis discusses indeterminate and determinate sentencing in great detail. It discusses its origin, its purpose, and its effect on the criminal justice system. Discretion being the main element of indeterminate sentencing- its role and legitimacy is often questioned. When judges determine a sentence for a person who has been convicted of a crime, they are supposed to take several things into account under this lens. “…the crime’s severity, the extent of any prior criminal convictions, the offender’s family circumstances, and his or her prospects for rehabilitation” (Travis, 2005, 15). Parole boards and parole officers are also supposed to take such factors into consideration when determining what the offender requires and needs after incarceration or custody.

The author goes on to discuss the purpose of the criminal sanction. Travis argues that the main point of a sanction is in fact rehabilitation rather than the commonly presumed punishment. However, Travis goes on to say that under indeterminate sentencing, rehabilitation is difficult to achieve because indeterminate sentencing requires that judges decide how an offender will be rehabilitated as well as parole boards and officers.

Furthermore, Travis discusses the criticism of indeterminate sentencing. These include racial discrimination, too much reliance on judicial discretion and much more. Specifically, “The practice of assigning significant sentencing responsibilities to the judicial branch was criticized as an inappropriate exercise of unchecked, unguided, and unreviewable power” (Travis, 2005, 17). Alternatively, “…the goal of rehabilitation was roundly characterized as tantamount to coddling criminals” (Travis, 2005, 17). The author goes on to cite the “Nothing Works!” report as a reason for the collapse of the rehabilitative ideal when relating to prisons.

Travis ends the chapter by stating there has been no new framework proposed, and “A number of states have enacted laws imposing mandatory minimum sentences, thereby depriving judges of the community supervision option and generally increasing the size of the prison population” (Travis, 2005, 20). This chapter have an interesting background on indeterminate sentencing, as well as granted insight into the rise of mandatory minimum sentences.

“But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry” by Jeremy Travis. 2005. The Urban Institute Press. Washington D.C. 1st Edition. Pages 7-20. Print.

"Too Severe?: A Defense of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (and a Critique of Federal Mandatory Minimums)" by Paul G. Cassell

In the article "Too Severe?: A Defense of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (and a Critique of Federal Mandatory Minimums)," author Paul Cassell attempts to shed light on whether or not an argument of undue severity can be made against mandatory minimums. According to Cassell, this is an argument that has not been made, although I would beg to differ. However, Cassell claims the guidelines associated with federal sentencing guidelines are not too severe because they fit social norms as prescribes by the public, as well as provide deterrence benefits and have “strong potential for being cost-effective crime control measures” (Cassell, 2004, 1018).

Cassell begins his argument by addressing a speech given by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, which prompted a nationwide discussion about the severity and the need for a reduction in mandatory minimums across the board. The author does note before going into methods and literature, this his approach will not fully delve into the issue of all discretionary sentencing measures. He posits that it is “fair to say that some calls for more “discretion” are, in truth, calls for lower sentences” (Cassell, 2004, 1019).

Crime control and just deserts have been known to be the purpose of punishment and adjudication in the criminal justice field. Cassell aims to assess these elements of sentencing as a way to measure punishment severity. The author goes on to present a table that shows the federal sentencing guidelines for crimes seen more frequently in court versus what the public feels the penalty should be. Most of them were fairly consistent. However, the public generally has a “tough on crime” approach to all things criminal justice, which implies that the federal government maintains the same way of thinking since their answers were almost identical.

An interesting part of this article however, is when Cassell states how many cases end up with a lesser sentence due to pleading down. “According to a recent General Accounting Office Study of downward departures, 36% of all federal sentenced involved a downward departure, including 44% of all drug sentences. While most of these departures are apparently for “substantial assistance” to government prosecutors or for the “fast tracking” of immigration offenses… the great bulk of federal cases (more than 95%) are resolved by a plea arrangement…” (Cassell, 2004, 1029). Here, the Cassell is positing that discretionary sentencing is making it so those on trial do not have to accept full responsibility- which is determined by the federal government sentencing guidelines.

This article was good in that it presented a point of view that is not seen very often in criminal justice: that mandatory minimums and discretionary sentencing are soft on sentencing. Cassell presented a lot of interesting data, and I think the argument is interesting.

Stanford Law Review Vol. 56, No. 5, 2004 Stanford Law Review Symposium: Punishment and Its Purposes (Apr., 2004), pp. 1017-1048

URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40040172

Barry 2000

Niu, S.X. (2014). Leaving home state for college: Differences by race/ethnicity and parental education. Research in Higher Education. 56 (4) pg. 325-359.

Attending college out-of-state is usually more expensive because of transportation and housing costs, but Niu (2014) makes the normative claim that “leaving home states for college provides additional benefits compared with attending college in home states” (pg. 347). This is mainly due to the finding that students who are attending out-of-state institutions are likely attending “a private, a 4-year, and a selective institution” (pg. 347), but Niu seems to believe that inequitable out-of-state college attendance should be noticed.

Niu cites other researchers who found that high-income students were more likely to apply to many schools as well as more selective schools. Previous research found that a student’s “likelihood of leaving home for college was found to be positively affected by the father’s education and the parental income” (pg. 327).

Niu conducted a study to examine where graduating seniors from 2010 actually attended, rather than focusing on college choices of students that were not confirmed with actual attendance in previous research. The study used secondary data from the SAT exam and then tracked where the students actually attended using data from the National Student Clearinghouse (pg. 329). In order to rank the selectivity of specific colleges, Niu used the Barron’s college selectivity index.

Based on the college(s) a specific student chose to have their SAT scores sent to (in-state vs. out-of-state), Niu looked at whether a student was more or less likely to request out-of-state colleges in comparison to the student’s race/ethnicity and parental education.

After descriptive and multivariate analyses were completed, Niu determined that White students had the highest rate of sending test scores to out-of-state colleges, while Hispanic students had the least likelihood of sending scores out-of-state (pg. 332). The increased likelihood of a student sending their test scores out-of-state was also correlated with higher levels of parental education. When this pattern was compared to where students actually attended, the correlation remained that White students with parents of high education levels were the most likely to attend out-of-state college, compared to Black, Hispanic and Asian students. This study notes that Black and Hispanic students who attended out-of-state colleges were likely attending colleges with ‘need-based’ financial aid practices, which provided additional need to students with low income.

These factors are in support of Brody’s two articles posted in the “PolEdu” tag, which analyzes a student’s ability to relocate to attend college as well as have access to transportation in order to attend. Public policy makers should be aware of possible barriers to students and seek ways to assist the public with overcoming these additional barriers.

-N Brusseau (9-28-15)

In the article "Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences" by Jeffrey Ulmer, Megan Kurlychek, and John Kramer, the prosecutorial discretion in the courtroom and its effects on sentencing outcomes is discussed. This article emerged out of the "Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency" in 2007. The article begins by discussing the popular and abrupt trend of distrust in judges which caused the emergence of mandatory minimums. This then led to the ultimate trust in prosecutors (Ulmer, Kurlychek and Kramer, 2007, 427). Overall, this article is a summary and analysis of what it means for a prosecutor to not only act as a judge, but to apply mandatory minimum sentencing eligibility to different kinds of offenders.

The findings of the article were not entirely surprising. Based on the author’s multivariate analysis, prosecutors granted more mandatory minimums far less often to those who “negotiated guilty pleas in the full sample and drug subsample and substantially less often to those with non-negotiated guilty pleas in the three-strikes subsample” (Ulmer, Kurlychek and Kramer, 2007, 448). Furthermore, the findings suggest that prosecutors may use the “threat of applying longer mandatory sentence as a key piece of leverage to obtain guilty pleas… and thus more certain convictions (Ulmer, Kurlychek and Kramer, 2007, 448). It is also interesting to note that those who enter into a non-negotiated plea are far less likely to receive mandatory imposition (Ulmer, Kurlychek and Kramer, 2007, 448). According to the authors, this is due to the fact that it may look remorseful and can look like the start of rehabilitation if the offender automatically accepts a “guilty” plea because it shows they are taking responsibility.

In terms of the offender’s race playing a role in the type of sentencing they received, there was little data found that suggested being Black increased the chances of receiving a mandatory minimum. However, Hispanic people were more likely to receive mandatory minimums. Males are also more likely than women to receive mandatory minimums because they are seen as less blameworthy and dangerous (Ulmer, Kurlychek and Kramer, 2007, 451).

The article ends with a general discussion about how mandatory minimums are not necessarily mandatory at all considering how prosecutors pick and choose who receives them. When other factors than the actual offense are considered, like race and gender, it becomes increasingly clear that prosecutors are given substantial unilateral authority in determining sentences for people who have in some cases committed the same crimes. Overall, I feel the theme of this article was that the need for expediency and quick justice is getting in the way of judicial discretion and fairer outcomes.

Ulmer, J. T., M. C. Kurlychek, and J. H. Kramer. 2007. "Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44.4: 427-58. Web.

http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2656/content/44/4/427.full.pdf+html

Test annotation

The theme of many Disney movies, but not often seen in life!

ustawienie tag manager aby google analytics zliczal lepiej landing page

How to install a previous release/version via github