rhino wrote on Mar 21
st, 2017 at 11:48am:
You are done Mothra, you posted an article which supports the opposite of which you claim but which supports what I have been claiming all along. You cant backpedal fast enough to get out of this one.
Bye bye Mothra
Curious analysis, after being exposed.
Seems you are desperately trying to evade the question.
Tell me Rhino, why did you choose to omit the consistent overall findings and rather copy and paste in an hypothesis?
And why only include the hypothesis that adheres to your confirmation bias? You didnt feel inclined to post in this one:
The Negative Discrimination HypothesisThis hypothesis argues that Indigenous status directly impacts sentencing, resulting in harsher
outcomes. In other words, the baseline sentencing disparity noted in the government court
data (see above) is not attributable to differences in other influential sentencing determinates
(e.g. past and present offending) as suggested by the differential involvement hypothesis.
Developed in early United States sentencing research, the theoretical foundations for this
hypothesis are based in the conflict school of criminology, where sentencing discrimination
was thought to be inevitable for minority groups because they posed a ‘threat’ to the
privileged position of whites in American society (Peterson and Hagan, 1984; Hawkins,
1987; Steen et al., 2005). Applying the conflict perspective in an Australian context, harsher
sentencing of Indigenous peoples would be predicted, given this country’s history of
colonisation and the continuing oppression of Indigenous people as evidenced by their
marginalised and disadvantaged social, political and economic status (Jeffries and Bond,
2009: 50).
More recently, the negative discrimination hypothesis has been theoretically positioned
within the focal concerns perspective (Bond and Jeffries, 2011a: 2). Research suggests that
sentencing decisions are guided by a number of judicial focal concerns, particularly: offender
blameworthiness and harm caused by the offence; community protection or risk; and practical
constraints presented by individual offenders, organisational resources, political and
community expectations (Steffensmeier, Ulmer and Kramer, 1998: 766-767). Similar
concerns have been found among Australian judges (see Mackenzie, 2005).
http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/1213/11-0910-FinalReport.pd...