In a study of the extent of racial discrimination and disparity ...

[ereecah]

In a study of the extent of racial discrimination and disparity among juvenile property offenders in Missouri, it was found that:
 
  a. African American youth were more likely than white youth to be detained prior to adjudication.
  b. African American youth were less likely to be formally referred and white youth were less likely to be adjudicated.
  c. White youth were more likely than African American youth to be detained prior to adjudication.
  d. There were no significant differences in how African American and white youth were treated.

Question 2

What are mandatory-minimum sentences? Why does the public like such sentences? How are mandatory-sentencing laws nullified by discretion? Provide an example of nullification in your answer.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[brittiany.barnes]

Answer to Question 1

a

Answer to Question 2

Mandatory-minimum sentencing laws require that offenders convicted of certain crimes be sentenced to at least a minimum amount of time in prison; non-prison sentences, such as probation, are not allowed. These laws often apply to gun crimes, drug crimes, and violent crimes. The public likes these laws because they provide (at least in theory) the promise of a prison sentence. However, these laws are not always applied because criminal justice actors use their discretion to offset the severity of the penalty.
Researchers find that at a number of stages in the process, including police arrest, prosecutorial charging, trial convictions, and judicial sentencing, discretionary decision making nullifies the impact of these laws. For example, this happened in Connecticut after the governor in that state tried to crack down on speeders by imposing a mandatory loss of the driver's license. Arrests for speeding decreased after the severe penalty was announced, because the police and other legal officials believed the penalty was too severe for the offense.

[ereecah]

TYSM

[yeungji]

Gracias!