User:Katherinesco/sandbox

 Article Evaluation of Race and genetics 


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I think that everything is pretty relevant! From what I know, it all seemed pretty accurate. There was some stuff I didn't entirely understand once it got very sciencey. I wouldn't consider any of it to be a distraction though.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * There are no sources cited that were written in the past two years (2017, 2018). Most of the sources were from the past ten years, and all of them were from the past 20. There are a few sections that are missing citations, so those could definitely be added.
 * What else could be improved?
 * There could have been more on the history of race and genetics. I only noticed a short section on it, and I know that there's a lot more to it.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

From what I could tell the article was pretty neutral. No biased claims appear to be made. It did a pretty good job of showing multiple viewpoints.

 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think so.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * http://www.allmallorcahotels.com/fsijournalorg/ -> This website that was used in a citation would not work on my computer. I also really don't think it's relevant based on the url. I clicked on a few other links though, and they all worked and seemed to be from credible sources (i.e. The New York Times and various science journals/textbooks).
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * No, a lot of the sections were not cited. The information that was cited (mostly the science parts) that I checked all seemed to be from reliable sources like The New York Times and various scientific journals/textbooks.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There aren't really any conversations, but people are posting things that they have edited and things that they are unsure about. Also one person was clarifying why they edited something.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It has a C-Class rating, and is of interest to the WikiProject Anthropology, Ethnic Groups, Human Genetic History, and Sociology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It talks about in a way that is super neutral, without adding any opinions or first hand experiences, which we've been doing a lot of in class. It tries not to take into account the positionally of the author.

Bibliography for Project (In APA Format)
Blankenship, Kim M., et al. "Mass incarceration, race inequality, and health: expanding concepts and assessing impacts on well-being." Social Science & Medicine (2018).

Mebane‐Cruz, Anjana. "Incarceration by Category: Racial Designations and the Black Borders of Indianness." PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 38.2 (2015): 226-247.

Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Doris L. MacKenzie. "The relationship between race, ethnicity, and sentencing outcomes: A meta-analysis of sentencing research." Final Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice (2004).

Burch, Traci. "Skin Color and the Criminal Justice System: Beyond Black‐White Disparities in Sentencing." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12.3 (2015): 395-420.

SKEEM, J. L. and LOWENKAMP, C. T. (2016), RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT. Criminology, 54: 680-712. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12123

Race and Sentencing Length (add to)
Over the past 70 years, researching the impact that racial identity has on sentencing outcomes has been at the forefront of criminology. But, many studies contradict each other. Some studies found that minorities receive harsher sentences than whites, while others found that minorities received lighter punishments. In a study done from 2011-2014, that followed 302 men and women in drug related convictions found that blacks were actually convicted at a lower rate than other ethnicities, but had 2.5 more incarcerations on average.

A study focusing primarily on black and white men in Georgia uncovered that, on average, black men received sentences that were 4.25 percent higher than whites for the same type of crime. It is also documented that, in the United States as a whole, Latinos, African Americans, and American Indians are far more frequently convicted than white Americans, and they receive harsher and longer punishments than their white counterparts for committing the same crimes.

Race and recidivism
A study that considered 34,794 federal offenders took into account the race, risk assessment, and future arrests of all participating members of the sample. Though the use of the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA), which proved to be highly accurate in predicting whether or not whites and blacks would return to prison after being released, showed that recidivism correlates less with race and more with criminal history.

Other studies suggest that recidivism rates as related to race vary based on state. For example, the Alabama Department of Corrections performed a study where they tracked 2003 releases for 3 years. In that time span, 29% of both African American and white males that were released returned to prison, 20% of African American females that were released returned to prison, and 24% of white females returned to prison. The Florida Department of Corrections performed a similar study; they tracked 2001 releases for 5 years. They found that 45% of African American males were reincarcerated and 28% of non-African American males were reincarcerated.

Race and habitual offender sentencing (add to)
There have been two main studies that researched the issue of habitual offenders in regards to race. Both were mostly conducted by Western Michigan University professor Charles Crawford. Published in 1998 and 2000, both studies focused on habitual offenders in the state of Florida. Crawford's studies found that black defendants in Florida were significantly more likely to be sentenced as habitual offenders than were whites, and that this effect was significantly larger for drug offenses and property crimes of which whites are often the victims.

Examining both individual level and county level variables, a new study from 2008 updated and evaluated Crawford's work. It affirmed that sentencing policies are becoming harsher, and habitual offender statutes are currently just another tool that lawmakers use to incarcerate minorities at a higher rate than their white counterparts. The 2008 study concluded that habitual offender statutes can only continue to be used if they are used in a way that completely disregards race and is unbiased.