Discrimination Based on Different Gender
Author’s Name
Institution Affiliation

Discrimination Based on Different Gender
Rampant cases of discrimination and sentencing disparity have been witnessed across the different law enforcement sectors. A study at the University of Michigan found out that men and women who have committed the same crimes receive different sentence lengths since women tend to receive shorter sentence length compared to men. The study further provides evidence that females arrested for criminal activities are likely to avoid convictions, charges and might avoid being incarcerated if convicted (Law and Policy, 2010). Some judges view women's involvement in crime is as a result of their environment while men committing crime is assumed to be driven by personal motivations. Female judges do not show leniency towards subjects of their gender groups. The experience of female judges makes them arrive at an appropriate conclusion than their male counterparts. According to Peresie (2005) sentencing decisions made by African-American, White and Hispanic judges vary since a white judge passing a ruling to a Hispanic offender is likely to provide a lengthy jail time to a Hispanic offender due to the racial profiling. The case remains the same to the African-American judges when passing the ruling for white offenders and leniency to their races. Racial disparity in sentencing has been there for a long time in the U.S criminal justice system. The key findings are that young Latino and Black male offenders receive higher trail penalty compared to the Whites (Kansal, 2005). The evidence of discrimination is more prevalent at the federal level than at the state level resulting to Blacks and Latinos receiving harsher rulings. Employment, marital and educational status should not be a factor when passing sentences. Offenders are equal regarding the crimes they commit. Indeterminate sentencing could be used in some exceptional cases when it comes to public safety and lenient sentences passed on some offenders. The cocaine law is discriminatory since there are unequal outcomes when it comes to sentencing different racial groups. There are higher rates of incarceration for the Latinos and Blacks as compared to Whites. The moral panic theory is triggered by media stories and reinforced by public policy and reactive laws. The theory is often based on exaggeration and misdirected public concern. The theory has increased racial profiling and harsher judgments in the cocaine laws thus favoring those not in the minority groups.

References
Kansal, T. (2005). RACIAL DISPARITY IN SENTENCING. The Sentencing Project.
Law And Policy. (2010). Gender, Critical Mass, and Judicial Decision Making, 32(2), 1-22.
Peresie, J. L. (2005). Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decision making in the Federal Appellate Courts. The Yale Law Journal, 114(2), 1-32.