Sophia Rosing was banned from the University of Kentucky campus after the incident
A college student who went on a drunken tirade using the n-word 200 times will now head to jail for a year.
Sophia Rosing, a former student at the University of Kentucky, became infamous in 2022 for her rant that was captured on video and shared on social media. In the video, Rosing was caught using the slur at a fellow student and assaulting her.
Rosing previously pleaded guilty to four counts of fourth-degree assault and other charges. When she entered her plea, she apologized to fellow student Kylah Spring and members of the Black community.
This week, a judge in Kentucky sentenced Rosing to 12 months in custody and 100 hours of community service, according to Lex 18.
…
In the infamous video Spring said that Rosing struck her numerous times and kicked her in the stomach. As Spring is explaining what happened to her, Rosing can be heard yelling at her in the background, calling the Black student the n-word and a “b****” throughout the footage.
How was this not elevated to a hate crime? That sentance is weak sauce for a racially motivated attack
It’s hard not to just be blunt here. She’s a white girl. Sentencing guidelines and police protocols are different for people matching that description. It’s a known, researched phenomenon.
It’s not unreasonable to say that the police work for non-impoverished, non-overweight white women. It’s noticeable in how quick white women are to call the police and think the police will help with a problem.
Statistically, you are roughly about 1000% more likely to experience police violence if you are not a white woman.
It’s not really for being a white girl, it’s primarily for being a girl.
Women get 63% lighter sentences for the same crimes as men ( https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/17/1/127/212179 ), while there is no racial gap between white and another race, whether among men, or women, that’s even half that wide ( https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2023-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing ).
Her being white is most certainly a factor. Racial judicial bias is definitely a thing. When you add in gender judicial bias you end with a tap on the wrist for a most egregious crime.
The first article doesn’t primarily address racial disparities within the context of gender. The second one, which does, notes pronounced leniency for white women vs. women of other races. As a woman, you are between 12-30% less likely to receive probation instead of incarceration if you aren’t white. Where things were roughly equal is if you are being incarcerated, which is more likely if you’re not white as noted above, you are likely to get a roughly equivalent period of incarceration for an equivalent crime. All of these outcomes will be significantly worse if you’re a man.
None of that contradicts the simple point I made, which is that being a woman instead of a man is a vastly larger advantage in the US with respect to judicial leniency, than being white instead of another race, and yet certain biased people always seem to want to imply/argue that the latter is the primary factor, when it isn’t.
As an analogy, it’s kind of like how when people are talking about rape, discourse is typically more likely to center on ‘jumped in a dark alley’ type scenarios, even though the fact is that that is literally the least common way rape happens, and that statistically, it’s very rare for the assailant to be a stranger to the victim.
I was just clarifying for others where you said that sentencing isn’t harsher for women of color, which isn’t true for sentencing in general, only for sentences involving incarceration, which non-white women are more likely to receive.
Literally never said that. I just pointed out that being the ‘wrong’ sex hurts you more than being the ‘wrong’ race.
White men get sentenced much more harshly than black women for the same crime, for example. That’s a fact.
It’s both. The criminal justice system treats white folks better than black folks, and women better than men. Depending on what exactly you’re measuring which one is the larger gap can go either way. For sentencing, sex means more than race - so she’d get a longer sentence if she were a black woman, but an even longer one if she were a white man, and a still longer one if she were a black man.
I’m actually surprised a white girl got a whole year for an assault. And not even a suspended sentence!
I’ve seen cases where it’s like “white woman stabs boyfriend in heart, boyfriend narrowly survives due to prompt medical attention, 30 day suspended sentence” or “woman sexually assaults minor boy, gets herself pregnant from the assault, no punishment for her and boy owes woman child support for being her victim.”
Holy shit lol, I know it’s both! I never said it’s not both. I’m just pointing out the common misconception, that people tend to assume the wrong one of the two is statistically a bigger factor. And not just bigger, but much bigger.
In case anyone thinks this person is being hyperbolic here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
Can you now address their bizarre assertion that the police only work for slim people?
Most broader social biases translate into higher rates of police violence, albeit not always evenly. Weight bias in society is a fairly well-established phenomenon. It translating into an increased risk of police violence hardly seems a stretch.
Your best chance of a low-risk encounter with the police and a favorable outcome in the justice system is to be a slim, upper-middle-class, college-educated white woman. If you only get to choose one, as the commenter above noted, choose woman.
Attractiveness bias is a thing. In America, slim people are perceived as more attractive so tend to get treated more leniently.
That is apparently determined at sentencing in Kentucky.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=45774
So blame the judge.