Analysis Of Sentencing By The Numbers By Sonja Starr

A recent trend in the United States Justice System, at local and state levels, is to implement the use of formulas and algorithms to determine sentencing length. In her article “Sentencing, by the Numbers”, University of Michigan law professor Sonja Starr focuses on this trend, and shows flaws that she finds in the system. In the article, she agrees with the actions of Attorney General Eric Holder in criticizing the system for the way in which it determines the risk of future crimes. Throughout, Starr presents the system as something that will, instead of solving mass incarceration, make the problem worse for impoverished persons and minorities. Starr argues that the system discriminates against those with a socioeconomic disadvantage, has

The main argument for this is that there are precedent Supreme Court cases ruling against the clumping of individuals into groups, which is, according to Starr, what the algorithm does in its calculations. The case of Bearden v. Georgia (1983) is referenced because in their decision, the Court said that, “ ‘lumping him together with other poor persons and thereby classifying him as dangerous… would be little more than punishing him for his poverty’ “ (10.2) because the state of Georgia would not revoke his probation, claiming that his recent job loss increased his crime risk. Through the wording in the presentation of the case, it is intentionally paralleled to the algorithms used today. In addition, the wording also presents the evidence-based sentencing as something that does not consider individuality but instead generalizes defendants into groups. Starr makes the statement that, “people have a right to be treated as individuals, and individuals do not often conform to group averages” (9.3) to have the effect on the reader of making them feel as if the system cannot understand the individual person, and by the placement at the end of her paragraph, turns it into a powerful statement for the reader to

Although evidence is not provided to support this statement, it is inserted for the purpose of creating suspicion against the purpose and goals of evidence-based sentencing. This is built on more when Starr calls some of the systems “corporate products” (11.2) and stating that defendants may not understand the system. The image of corporate interests overpowering individuals is used to further the idea of a helplessness defendant. Changes are then proposed to the current system to make it “legitimate” (13.1), with the language used being a way to call the credibility of the current system into question. Although no changes for considered factors are proposed, it is suggested that factors “within the defendants control” (12.3) are considered instead. To conclude the final argument, Starr asserts that, “there is no persuasive evidence that current troubling variables add much predictive value, once criminal conduct is already taken into account” (13.2) to summarize what she had been showing in previous paragraphs and to eliminate any doubt that she could have left with the