On Estimating Disparity and Inferring Causation: Sur-Reply to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff
In this Essay, Professors Starr and Rehavi respond to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s empirical staff’s criticisms of their recent article, which found, contrary to the Commission’s prior work, no evidence that racial disparity in sentences increased in response to United States v. Booker. As Starr and Rehavi suggest, their differences with the Commission perhaps relate to differing objectives. The Commission staff’s reply expresses a lack of interest in identifying Booker’s causal effects; in contrast, that is Starr and Rehavi’s central objective. In addition, Starr and Rehavi’s approach also accounts for disparities arising throughout the post-arrest justice process, extending beyond the Commission’s narrower focus on disparities in adherence to the Sentencing Guidelines. Beyond these core disagreements, Starr and Rehavi point to several ways in which the reply’s other criticisms inaccurately describe their claims, their methods, and the scope of their study’s sample.
Starr, Sonja B. "On Estimating Disparity and Inferring Causation: Sur-Reply to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff." M. M. Rehavi, co-author. Yale L. J. Online 123 (2013): 273-95.
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Race Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons