Fair Sentencing Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Crack cocaine

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–220) was an Act of Congress that was signed into federal law by United States President Barack Obama on August 3, 2010 that reduces the disparity between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. Similar bills were introduced in several U.S. Congresses before its passage in 2010, and courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 implemented the initial disparity, reflecting Congress's view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder cocaine. In the decades since, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the sentencing disparity is unwarranted. Further controversy surrounding the 100:1 ratio was a result of its description by some as being racially biased and contributing to a disproportionate number of African Americans being sentenced for crack cocaine offenses. Legislation to reduce the disparity has been introduced since the mid-1990s, culminating in the signing of the Fair Sentencing Act.

The Act has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and non-profit organizations have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and complete elimination of the disparity (i.e., enacting a 1:1 sentencing ratio).

Background

The use of crack cocaine increased rapidly in the 1980s, accompanied by an increase in violence in urban areas. In response, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included a provision that created the disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same penalties for the possession of an amount of crack cocaine as for 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The law also contained minimum sentences and other disparities between the two forms of the drug.

Sentencing disparity and effects

In the three decades prior to the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possessing crack cocaine faced much more severe penalties than those in possession of powder cocaine. While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a person holding powder cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he or she held five hundred grams. Similarly, those carrying ten grams of crack cocaine faced a ten-year mandatory sentence, while possession of one thousand grams of powder cocaine was required for the same sentence to be imposed.

At that time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the high ratio: crack cocaine was more addictive than powder cocaine; crack cocaine was associated with violent crime; youth were more likely to be drawn to crack cocaine; crack cocaine was inexpensive, and therefore more likely to be consumed in large quantities; and use of crack cocaine by pregnant mothers was dangerous for their unborn children.

A study released in 1997 examined the addictive nature of both crack and powder cocaine and concluded that one was no more addictive than the other. The study explored other reasons why crack is viewed as more addictive and theorized, "a more accurate interpretation of existing evidence is that already abuse-prone cocaine users are most likely to move toward a more efficient mode of ingestion as they escalate their use. The Los Angeles Times commented, "There was never any scientific basis for the disparity, just panic as the crack epidemic swept the nation's cities."

Cocaine powder

The sentencing disparity between these two drug offenses is perceived by a number of commentators as racially biased. In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission concluded that the disparity created a "racial imbalance in federal prisons and led to more severe sentences for low-level crack dealers than for wholesale suppliers of powder cocaine. ... As a result, thousands of people – mostly African Americans – have received disproportionately harsh prison sentences."

In 2002, the United States Sentencing Commission "found that the ratio was created based upon a misperception of the dangers of crack cocaine, which had since been proven to have a less drastic effect than previously thought." In 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission introduced figures stating that no class of drug is as racially skewed as crack in terms of numbers of offenses. According to the data, 79% of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders were black, while only 10% were white and 10% were Hispanic. The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine convictions, in contrast, were as follows: 17% of these offenders were white, 28% were black, and 53% were Hispanic. Combined with a 115-month average imprisonment for crack offenses, compared with an average of 87 months for cocaine offenses, the sentencing disparity results in more African-Americans spending more time in the prison system.

Asa Hutchinson, the former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration under President George W. Bush, commented that because of the disparate treatment of these two offenses, "the credibility of our entire drug enforcement system is weakened." The U.S. Sentencing Commission also released a statement saying that "perceived improper racial disparity fosters disrespect for and lack of confidence in the criminal justice system." According to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, "The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African Americans at six times the rate of Whites and to the United States' position as the world's leader in incarcerations."

Attempts to change the disparity

Legal challenges

Although the 100:1 federal sentencing ratio remained unchanged from 1986 to 2010, two U.S. Supreme Court cases provided lower courts with discretion in determining penalties for cocaine convictions. Kimbrough v. United States (2007) and Spears v. United States gave lower courts the option to set penalties and allowed judges who disagreed with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to depart from the statutory ratio based on policy concerns. In 2009, the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Western District of Virginia and District of Columbia used these cases to create one-to-one sentencing ratios of crack cocaine to powder cocaine. United States v. Booker (2005) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) also weakened the sentencing guidelines as a whole by making them advisory.

Proposed legislation

The U.S. Sentencing Commission first called for reform of the 100:1 sentencing disparity in 1994 after a year-long study on the differing penalties for powder and crack cocaine required by the Omnibus Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The Commission found that the sentencing disparity was unjustified due to the small differences between the two forms of cocaine, and advised Congress to equalize the quantity ratio that would trigger mandatory sentences. Congress rejected the Commission's recommendations for the first time in the Commission's history.

In April 1997, the Commission again recommended a reduction in the disparity, providing Congress with a range from 2:1 to 15:1 to choose from. This recommendation would have raised the quantity of crack and lowered the quantity of powder cocaine required to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. Congress did not act on this recommendation. In 2002, the Commission again called for reducing sentencing disparities in its Report to Congress based on extensive research and testimony by medical and scientific professionals, federal and local law enforcement officials, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and civil rights organizations.

Congress first proposed bipartisan legislation to reform crack cocaine sentencing in 2001, when Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) introduced the Drug Sentencing Reform Act. This proposal would have raised the amount of crack cocaine necessary for a five-year mandatory minimum from 5 grams to 20 grams and would have lowered the amount of powder cocaine necessary for the same sentence from 500 grams to 400 grams, a 20:1 ratio. During the 110th United States Congress, seven crack cocaine sentencing reform bills were introduced that would have reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses without increasing mandatory sentences.

In the Senate, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sponsored the Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007 (S. 1685) that would have created a 20:1 ratio by increasing the five-year quantity trigger for mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine to 25 grams and leaving the powder cocaine level at 500 grams. Former senator and former Vice President of the United States Joe Biden sponsored the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 (S. 1711), which would have completely eliminated the disparity by increasing the amount of crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms to those of powder cocaine.

Both of these bills would have eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine. In the House of Representatives, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sponsored the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 (H.R. 4545), the companion to Biden's proposed bill. Charles Rangel sponsored the Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 2007 (H.R. 460), a bill he had been introducing since the mid-1990s that would have equalized cocaine sentencing and eliminated specified mandatory minimum penalties relating to the trafficking in, and possession, importation, or distribution of, crack cocaine.

The FIRST STEP Act, passed in December 2018, retroactively applied the Fair Sentencing Act, aiding around 2,600 imprisoned people.

Opposition to the Act

Some members of Congress opposed the Act. Lamar S. Smith (R-TX), the top-ranking Republican on the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, argued against its passage stating, "I cannot support legislation that might enable the violent and devastating crack cocaine epidemic of the past to become a clear and present danger." Specifically, Smith alleged that because "reducing the penalties for crack cocaine could expose our neighborhoods to the same violence and addiction that caused Congress to act in the first place," the bill risked a return to the crack cocaine epidemic that "ravaged our communities, especially minority communities." Smith claimed that the severe sentences for crack cocaine were justified by a high correlation between crack cocaine arrests and both violent crime and past criminal history.

The Fraternal Order of Police, a national organization of law enforcement officers, also opposed the Act. It argued that because increased violence is associated with the use of crack, especially in urban areas, high penalties for crack-related offenses were justified, relying on U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics showing that 29% of all crack cases from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009, involved a weapon, compared to only 16% for powder cocaine. The organization also stated that the enhanced penalties for crack cocaine "have proven useful, and a better course of action would have been to instead raise the penalties for powder cocaine crimes." The Fair Sentencing Act includes a provision to account for such aggravated cases, allowing penalties to be increased for the use of violence during a drug trafficking offense.

The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) opposed the bill, stating that "Both crack and powder cocaine are dangerous narcotics and plights [sic] on communities throughout the United States. ... NSA would consider supporting legislation that would increase the sentence for powder cocaine, rather than significantly reducing the sentence for crack cocaine."

Proposal and passage of the bill

President Barack Obama at the signing ceremony for the Act.

On July 29, 2009, the United States House Committee on the Judiciary passed proposed legislation, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act (H.R.3245), a bill sponsored by Bobby Scott. Co-sponsored by a group of 62 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, the bill would have completely eliminated the sentencing disparity. The Fair Sentencing Act was introduced as compromise legislation to get bipartisan and unanimous support, amended to merely reduce the 100:1 disparity to 18:1.

The Fair Sentencing Act (S. 1789) was authored by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and cosponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL). The bill passed the U.S. Senate on March 17, 2010 and passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 27, 2010, with House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-SC) and Bobby Scott (D-VA) as key supporters. The bill was then sent to President Obama and signed into law on August 3, 2010.

Key provisions

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 amended the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act by increasing the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) that would result in mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking and by increasing monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for importing/exporting controlled substances. The five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack cocaine was also eliminated, and sentencing may take account of accompanying violence, among other aggravating factors.

The bill directed the United States Sentencing Commission to take four actions:

• review and amend its sentencing guidelines to increase sentences for those convicted of committing violent acts in the course a drug trafficking offense;
• incorporate aggravating and mitigating factors in its guidelines for drug trafficking offenses;
• announce all guidelines, policy statements, and amendments required by the act no later than 90 days after its enactment; and
• study and report to Congress on the impact of changes in sentencing law under this act.

In addition, the bill requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress with an analysis of the effectiveness of drug court programs under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This must be done within one year after the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Impact and reception

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that implementing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 will reduce the prison population by 1,550 person-years over the time period from 2011–2015, creating a monetary savings of $42 million during that period. The CBO also estimates that the Act's requirement for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a report on the effectiveness of a Department of Justice grant program to treat nonviolent drug offenders would cost less than $500,000 from appropriated funds.

On October 15, 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted 6-1 to approve a temporary amendment to federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the changes made by the Fair Sentencing Act. The Commission changed the sentencing guidelines to reflect Congress's increasing the amount of crack cocaine that would trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence from 5 grams to 28 grams (one ounce) and the amount that would trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum from 50 grams to 280 grams. The amendment also lists aggravating factors to the guidelines, creating harsher sentences for crack cocaine offenses involving violence or bribery of law enforcement officials. The Commission made the amendment permanent on June 30, 2011.

Effective November 1, 2011, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies retroactively to reduce the sentences of certain offenders already sentenced for federal crack cocaine offenses before the passage of the bill. However, the nonprofit organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a major advocate of the Fair Sentencing Act, has lobbied Congress to make the entire act retroactive. According to Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, "there is no scientific basis for the disparity and by promoting laws and policies that treat all Americans equally, and by working to amend or end those that do not, we can only increase public confidence in the criminal justice system and help create a safer and healthier nation for us all."

Progressives argue for elimination of the sentencing disparity altogether and believe that the impact of the bill on racial disparities in drug enforcement may be limited for several reasons. First, while the bill reduces the ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentencing, it does not achieve full parity. Second, the Act does not address the enforcement prerogatives of federal criminal justice agencies: while African-American defendants account for roughly 80% of those arrested for crack-related offenses, public health data has found that two-thirds of crack users are white or Hispanic. Third, the Act does not reduce sentences for those prosecuted under state law, and state prosecutions account for a vast majority of incarcerations for drug-related offenses.

Mandatory sentencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Mandatory sentencing laws often target "moral vices" (such as alcohol, sex, drugs) and crimes that threaten a person's livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so heinous, there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing that arise from judicial discretion are supposed to make sentencing more fair and balanced. In Australia and the United Kingdom, sentencing has been heavily influenced by judicial idiosyncrasies. Individual judges have a significant effect on the outcome of the case, sometimes leading the public to believe that a sentence reflects more about the judge than the offender. Subsequently, creating stricter sentencing guidelines would promote consistency and fairness in the judicial system. Mandatory sentences are also supposed to serve as a general deterrence for potential criminals and repeat offenders, who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught. This is the reasoning behind the "tough on crime" policy.

United States federal juries are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury's role is limited to a determination of guilt or innocence. However, defense attorneys sometimes have found ways to impart this information to juries; for instance, it is occasionally possible, on cross-examination of an informant who faced similar charges, to ask how much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in Idaho, it was deemed impermissible.

Notably, capital punishment has been mandatory for murder in a certain number of jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom until 1957 and Canada until 1961.

History

United States

Throughout US history, prison sentences were primarily founded upon what is known as discretionary sentencing. Leading up to this period of time, sentencing practices were largely criticized due to the discretionary applications utilized in sentencing. The assessment for sentencing was determined by three separate decisions (1) policy decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy decisions to particular facts. In review of these policies regarding the applications of sentencing, the policy decisions are those that dictate what considerations should affect punishment. The second, which is factual determinations are the means by which a judge determines whether to apply a particular policy to an offender. The third decision judges make in discretionary schemes is how to apply the sentencing policies to the particular facts. This authority was applied by the judge under the discretionary sentencing system as historically practiced. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that mandatory sentencing was implemented. In short, the difference between mandatory and discretionary sentencing system lies in policy and application decisions.

Now that historical practices of sentencing have been introduced, it is just as important to outline examples in reference to (1) policy decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy vs. decisions to particular facts.

• Policy Decisions – Policy guidelines that determine what should be acknowledged in an individuals sentencing criteria. For example: One judge might consider a reduction in time to be served vs. a judge who intends to exercise the fullest extent of the law in reference to the crime committed.
• Factual Decisions – A review of details that would enable particular policies to be applied at the discretion of the assigned judge. Hypothetically consider, two or more individuals who attempt to commit a crime using a deadly weapon. Assume these individuals reach their destination point, where they plan to commit such a crime. Then the one individual who is primarily carrying the weapon takes it out to threaten another individual and waves it about, but is suddenly spooked enough that the weapon is dropped. While the other individual who accompanied the perpetrator decides to pick up the weapon, wave it about and even inflicts force of use with the weapon in order to attempt or commit the crime.

Their actions would result in punishment as a part of the sentencing process, regardless of the type of weapon in question. The 1st, individual in fact waved the weapon, but the 2nd, waved and inflicted force of use of the weapon. Therefore, the two individuals in question regarding the same crime would receive two separate sentences.

• Decisions Applying Policy vs. Decisions to Particular Facts - This form of application is the core of discretionary sentencing. It allows for sentencing to be tailored to an individual. For example, consider a minor juvenile who has committed a crime that would allow for a lengthy sentencing period, but because the individual is a minor the assigned judge can exercise discretion and decrease the sentence to be served vs. applying the full length of the sentencing as outlined in policy and the facts associated with the crime.

Overtime, the United States had under gone developmental growth in implementation of laws, sentencing guidelines and monumental transition points in time. Beginning in the early 1900s, the United States began to assess its role on the use of drugs, their purpose and the responsibilities within the law. During this time in 1914, opiate drug use outside of medical purpose was prohibited. It was not until 1930 that marijuana would reach the same platform as opiates, prohibiting use. This further led to stiffer regulations, even though the use of marijuana was not believed to evoke violent tenancies as previously suggested in earlier years, but this level of awareness had not reached public acknowledgment. Which further led to the implementation of sentencing guidelines in reference to drug use as well as sales consisting of opiates primarily (heroin and morphine), but also to include marijuana. The sentencing guidelines outlined applied to the use and sales of drugs. However, during this time discretionary sentencing was actively practiced. Therefore, the individuals who were guilty of utilizing such drugs vs. the sale of such use typically resulted in different sentences. Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951.

The acts made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses. With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted different mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana.

• 1st Offense: 2–5 years.
• 2nd Offense: 5–10 years.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is the one act known for shaping America. The implementations of this act has had many profound affects in the legal system, as we know it today. This act led to a Drug Free initiative regarding an individual's employment, a Drug Free work place and certification requirements for employers, and a Drug Free environment for those who receive government benefits regarding low-income recipients and their housing. This act further addresses interventions regarding illegal sales of imports, the ability to overtake ones assets, if an individual is found guilty of distribution. The act also implemented the first laws surrounding money laundering, which also led to the exposure of professional dealers and further identifies the crisis we are faced with today in reference to "The War on Drugs" we still combat today. Those found guilty of distribution were sentenced as outlined.

• 5g. of Crack vs. 500 g. of Powder Cocaine resulted in a minimum sentencing of 5 years.
• 50 g. of Crack vs. 5,000 g. of Powder Cocaine resulted in a minimum sentencing of 10 years.
• 50 g. of Powder Cocaine imported resulted in No Mandatory Sentence

Separate from each state's own courts, federal courts in the United States are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant's sentence and thereby create incentives to accept a plea agreement. In particular, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but the prosecutor can exercise his discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.

Safety Valve was created in 1994 to reduce mandatory sentencing for drug offenders under the following provisions:

1. the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
2. the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
3. the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person;
4. the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and
5. not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

In October 2011 a report was issued to assess the impact of United States v. Booker mandatory minimum penalties on federal sentencing by the United States Sentencing Commission.

In 2013, United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. Prosecutions dropped, drug enforcement agent morale dropped, and fentanyl and heroin overdoses soared, reported The Washington Post in 2019. In Alleyne v. United States (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt. It increases the burden on the prosecutor to prove that the sentence is necessary for the individual crime by requiring that a mandatory minimum sentence be denied for defendant unless they fulfill certain criteria. Attorney General Holder held that the charges placed on an individual should reflect the uniqueness of the case and consideration in assessing and fairly representing his/her given conduct. This is supposed to prevent recidivism.

Criminal justice advocates in the United States argue that mandatory minimum sentences are a major cause of the removal of the "bottom income half to quartile" of its population from the general public. As part of police targeting and surveillance and often harsh sentencing, mandatory sentencing often is proposed as "fairness" by those unfamiliar with the penal systems in the US. Mandatory sentencing still has not been linked to other areas such as racial profiling, a 700% increase in US prison incarceration rates, zero tolerance and prison growth at the expense of employment, housing, education, family support and quality of life.

The U.S. state of Florida has a 10-20-Life mandatory sentence law regarding sentences for the use of a firearm during the commission of another crime, and many PSA posters were created after the law was passed, which coined the slogan “Use a gun, and you’re done.” It gave a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years if the offender pulls a gun, but does not fire a shot, 20 years if at least one shot is fired, and 25 years to life if the offender shoots someone.

Australia

In 1996, 12 month mandatory sentencing laws around third offence home burglary were introduced by Western Australia through amendments to the 1913 Criminal Code. In 1997 mandatory sentencing was introduced to the Northern Territory in Australia. The three strikes and out policy raised incarceration rates of indigenous women by 223% in the first year. The incarceration rate for men rose by 57% and 67% for indigenous men. The mandatory sentencing laws sparked debate of the laws being discriminative (indirectly) as indigenous people are overrepresented in the crime statistics in the Northern Territory.

New South Wales has two mandatory sentences currently. The Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 introduced mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of murdering a police officer. Also, the Crimes and Other Legislation (Assault and Intoxication) Amendment 2014 introduced mandatory minimum sentencing of 8 years for alcohol fuelled acts of violence, as a response to the cases of king hit assaults in Sydney. These laws were championed by NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell largely due to the wide media coverage of similar cases, in particular the case of Kieren Loveridge who killed Thomas Kelly.

Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder in Queensland, South Australia, and the Northern Territory. Life imprisonment is only mandatory in the other states for aircraft hijacking or with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years (25 years in South Australia and the Northern Territory) if a criminal is convicted of the murder of a police officer or public official.

Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five and 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.

In 2017, the government of Victoria introduced a "two-strike" policy, with a minimum six-year jail sentence for repeat violent offenders.

Victoria also has a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence for people convicted of killing someone in a so-called "one punch" attack.

Victoria has mandatory sentencing of 6 months imprisonment for any assault of emergency workers however the courts have overruled this as is the case with https://www.news.com.au/news/national/paramedic-assault-laws-work-says-judge/news-story/64deeecddde2daee7e1c538269b31cdd

Mandatory death sentence

• In Canada until 1961, murder was punishable only by death, provided that the offender was a sane adult.
• In 1930, the city of Canton (now Guangzhou), in China, enacted a mandatory death penalty for three-time offenders.
• In Czechoslovakia, under Beneš decree No. 16/1945 Coll., informing to German authorities during World War II's occupation was subject to mandatory death sentence if it led to death of the person concerned by the act.
• In pre-1833 France, before jury were allowed to find mitigating circumstances to felonies, death penalty was the only available sentence for capital offenses.
• In Hong Kong, murder carried a mandatory death sentence until 1993 when capital punishment was legally abolished. However, the last execution was in 1966; since then all death sentences were automatically commuted into life imprisonment.
• In India, murder committed by a convict serving a life sentence carries a mandatory death sentence. The mandatory death penalty provided in Section 31A of India Law is in the nature of minimum sentence in respect of repeat offenders of specified activities and for offences involving huge quantities of specified categories of narcotic drugs. As of August 2005, aircraft hijacking also mandates use of the death penalty.
• In Japan, the only crime punishable by a mandatory death sentence is instigation of foreign aggression.
• In Malaysia and Singapore, there is a mandatory death penalty for certain offences, most notably murder and possession of a certain amount of controlled drugs.
• In Taiwan, there used to be a large number of offenses that carried a mandatory death penalty; by 2006 all these laws have been relaxed to permit judicial discretion.
• In the United Kingdom, crimes punishable by a mandatory death sentence included murder (until 1957; from 1957 to 1965, only if certain aggravating criteria were met), treason (until 1998), sedition and espionage.
• In the United States, mandatory death sentences were determined to be unconstitutional in 1976, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Woodson v. North Carolina. They were mainly used for murder and assault by life convicts.

Other

Denmark has mandatory minimum sentences for murder (five years to life) and regicide (life in prison § 115), deadly arson is punished with imprisonment from 4 years to life, and for an illegal loaded gun one year in state prison.

The state of Florida in the United States has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as 10-20-Life, which includes the following minimums: 10 years' imprisonment for using a gun during a crime, 20 years' imprisonment for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 years' imprisonment in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.

In Canada and Ireland, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder if committed, at the time of the offence, as an adult. Parole ineligibility periods vary, but under Irish and Canadian law, are not less than 7 and 10 years, respectively.

In New Zealand, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder. Murders with certain aggravating factors have a mandatory 17-year non-parole period, instead of the default 10 years for life imprisonment. Since 2002, judges have the ability to overrule mandatory sentences where they would be deemed "manifestly unjust", such as in cases involving mercy killings and failed suicide pacts.

In Germany, murder for pleasure, sexual gratification, greed or other base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or in order to facilitate or cover up another offense is mandatorily punished by life imprisonment.

In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. The law requires that courts must set a minimum term before they become eligible for parole. For this purpose a number of "starting points" are in place that give guidance to a judge in order to impose a sentence in each different case of murder. There are currently five "starting points" for murder in England and Wales, namely: 12 years' imprisonment for cases of murder committed by a person under 18; 15 years' imprisonment for all "other" cases of murder committed by a person over 18; 25 years' imprisonment for cases of murder where a person over 18 uses a knife or other weapon at the scene; 30 years' imprisonment for cases of murder with "particularly" high aggravating factors, such as those that involve the use of a firearm or explosive, or a murder in the course of committing another offence such as robbery or burglary; and a whole life order, in cases that involve such "exceptionally" high aggravating factors, such as the murder of two or more persons, or the murder of a child following abduction or with sexual/sadistic motivation, meaning the person will never become eligible for parole.

The United Kingdom currently also has three more mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.

Three strikes law

In 1994, California introduced a "Three Strikes Law", which was the first mandatory sentencing law to gain widespread publicity. This state is known for fully enforcing laws and is considered most severe in comparison to other states. The Three strikes law was intended to reduce crime by implementing extended sentencing to deter repeated offenders. This consideration further restricts one’s ability to commit new crimes.  Similar laws were subsequently adopted in most American jurisdictions.

However, California's "Three Strikes Law" is clearly outlined for all, especially those who are subjected to such sentencing.

strike (1)

• Directly affects individuals who exhibit a history regarded as violent or serious pertaining to their initial felony conviction. Should this history exist, it could greatly impact sentencing guidelines surrounding an individuals present felony conviction.

strike (2)

• An individual who has committed a crime resulting in their 2nd felony conviction, would be affected by the second strike as well. This would impact the length of the individuals sentencing by doubling the sentence one would initially be subject to, if it were their first felony conviction.

strike (3)

• Is intended individuals who appear to be repeated offenders. Therefore, this strike is for individuals who have two or more felony convictions, their sentencing would result in a minimum of 25 years to life.

A similar "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual offence (i.e. "two strikes" law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labour opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.

According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2003 a new "two strikes" law was enacted (effective from April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous.

Australia's Northern Territory in March 1997 introduced mandatory sentences of one month to one year for the third offence regarding property and theft. They were later adopted by Western Australia.

Race

Concerning US federal prisons, Barbara S. Meierhoefer, in her report for the Federal Judicial Center stated: "The proportion of black offenders grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% of the mandatory minimum drug offenders by 1990; whites now constitute less than a majority of this group. This is a much more dramatic shift than found in the federal offender population in general."

Harsh penalties lead to racial disparity. According to the Statistical Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties presented in October 2011, "[o]f all offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black (n=4,076), 31.8 percent were Hispanic (n=3,364), and 27.5 percent (n=2,913) were White."

Although exceptions such as the safety valve are authorized, demographics associated with race relevant to mandatory sentencing continue to show. "Hispanic offenders received relief from applicable mandatory minimum penalties at the highest rates, with rates of 65.9 percent in fiscal year 2000, 57.7 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 55.7 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other Race offenders had the next highest rates (52.8% in fiscal year 2000, 53.1% in fiscal year 2005 and 58.9% in fiscal year 2010). Black offenders consistently had the lowest rates (45.7% in fiscal year 2000, 32.8 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 34.9% in fiscal year 2010). White offenders received relief at 60.3 percent in fiscal year 2000, 42.5 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 46.5 percent in fiscal year 2010."

Arguments against

Opponents of mandatory sentencing point to studies that show criminals are deterred more effectively by increasing the chances of their conviction, rather than increasing the sentence if they are convicted. In a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Paul G. Cassell, from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, described mandatory sentencing as resulting in harsh sentencing and cruel and unusual punishment, stating that the sentencing requirements punish defendants "more harshly for crimes that threaten potential violence than for crimes that conclude in actual violence to victims". A hearing in 2009 heard testimony from the American Bar Association which stated that "Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy". In 2004 the association called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, stating that "there is no need for mandatory minimum sentences in a guided sentencing system." A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation found that mandatory minimums for cocaine offenses were not cost-effective in regards to either cocaine consumption or drug crime.

Some judges have expressed the opinion that mandatory minimum sentencing, especially in relation to alcohol-fueled violence, is not effective. In R v O’Connor, the High Court of Australia gave the opinion that when an offender is intoxicated, there will likely be a change in their personality and behaviour, which will then affect their self-control; that, while an offender may commit an act which is voluntary and intentional, it is not something that they would have done in a sober state. Intoxication is not a justification for criminal behaviour, nor (in most jurisdictions in the U.S. and Commonwealth) a legal defence; but since an intoxicated person's decisions are less likely to be shaped by rational assessment of consequences than those of a sober person, deterrence is likely to be less effective for intoxicated people.

Research indicates that mandatory minimum sentencing effectively shifts discretion from judges to the prosecutors. Prosecutors decide what charges to bring against a defendant, and they can "stack the deck", which involves over-charging a defendant in order to get them to plead guilty. Since prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and the judicial branch has almost no role in the sentencing, the checks and balances of the democratic system are removed, thus diluting the notion of separation of powers.

Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is the proper role of a judge, not a prosecutor, to apply discretion given the particular facts of a case (e.g., whether a drug defendant was a kingpin or low-level participant, or whether sex offender registration is an appropriate measure for a given crime and offender). When prosecutors apply discretion, they tend to invoke sentencing disparities when choosing among a variety of statutes with different sentencing consequences. In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences. They also cite a survey indicating that the public now prefers judicial discretion to mandatory minimums.

In 2015, a number of United States reformers, including the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Koch family foundations, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, announced a bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system and reduce mandatory sentencing laws. Their efforts were lauded by President Obama who noted these reforms will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences. In their arguments they noted that mandatory sentencing is often too harsh of a punishment and cripples someone's livelihood for minor crimes.

Correlation does not imply causation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event.

As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not necessarily imply that the resulting conclusion is false. Methods have been proposed that use correlation as the basis for hypothesis tests for causality, including the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "is a Sufficient condition for". This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of the material conditional: if p then q symbolized as p → q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation." In casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests rather than requires.

Where there is causation, there is correlation, but also a sequence in time from cause to effect, a plausible mechanism, and sometimes common and intermediate causes. While correlation is often used when inferring causation because it is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition.

In a widely studied example of the difficulties this possibility of this statistical fallacy poses in deciding cause, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But later randomized controlled trials showed that use of HRT led to a small but statistically significant increase in the risk of CHD. Reanalysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socioeconomic groups (ABC1), with better-than-average diet and exercise regimens. Thus the use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e., the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than one being a direct cause of the other, as had been supposed. The widely held (but mistaken) belief that RCTs provide stronger causal evidence than observational studies, the latter continued to consistently show benefits and subsequent analyses and follow-up studies have demonstrated a significant benefit for CHD risk in healthy women initiating oestrogen therapy soon after the onset of menopause.

Causal analysis

Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and effect. For any two correlated events, A and B, their possible relationships include:

• A causes B (direct causation);
• B causes A (reverse causation);
• A and B are both caused by C
• A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
• There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.

Thus there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.

In philosophy and physics

The nature of causality is systematically investigated in several academic disciplines, including philosophy and physics.

In academia, there are a significant number of theories on causality; The Oxford Handbook of Causation (Beebee, Hitchcock & Menzies 2009) encompasses 770 pages. Among the more influential theories within philosophy are Aristotle's Four causes and Al-Ghazali's occasionalism. David Hume argued that beliefs about causality are based on experience, and experience similarly based on the assumption that the future models the past, which in turn can only be based on experience – leading to circular logic. In conclusion, he asserted that causality is not based on actual reasoning: only correlation can actually be perceived. Immanuel Kant, according to Beebee, Hitchcock & Menzies (2009), held that "a causal principle according to which every event has a cause, or follows according to a causal law, cannot be established through induction as a purely empirical claim, since it would then lack strict universality, or necessity".

Outside the field of philosophy, theories of causation can be identified in classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, spacetime theories, biology, social sciences, and law. To establish a correlation as causal within physics, it is normally understood that the cause and the effect must connect through a local mechanism (cf. for instance the concept of impact) or a nonlocal mechanism (cf. the concept of field), in accordance with known laws of nature.

From the point of view of thermodynamics, universal properties of causes as compared to effects have been identified through the Second law of thermodynamics, confirming the ancient, medieval and Cartesian view that "the cause is greater than the effect" for the particular case of thermodynamic free energy. This, in turn, is challenged by popular interpretations of the concepts of nonlinear systems and the butterfly effect, in which small events cause large effects due to, respectively, unpredictability and an unlikely triggering of large amounts of potential energy.

Causality construed from counterfactual states

Intuitively, causation seems to require not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence. Suppose that a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one thinks of the counterfactual – the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.

A major goal of scientific experiments and statistical methods is to approximate as best possible the counterfactual state of the world. For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins who were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, this would be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In this case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation.

Well-designed experimental studies replace equality of individuals as in the previous example by equality of groups. The objective is to construct two groups that are similar except for the treatment that the groups receive. This is achieved by selecting subjects from a single population and randomly assigning them to two or more groups. The likelihood of the groups behaving similarly to one another (on average) rises with the number of subjects in each group. If the groups are essentially equivalent except for the treatment they receive, and a difference in the outcome for the groups is observed, then this constitutes evidence that the treatment is responsible for the outcome, or in other words the treatment causes the observed effect. However, an observed effect could also be caused "by chance", for example as a result of random perturbations in the population. Statistical tests exist to quantify the likelihood of erroneously concluding that an observed difference exists when in fact it does not (for example see P-value).

Causality predicted by an extrapolation of trends

When experimental studies are impossible and only pre-existing data are available, as is usually the case for example in economics, regression analysis can be used. Factors other than the potential causative variable of interest are controlled for by including them as regressors in addition to the regressor representing the variable of interest. False inferences of causation due to reverse causation (or wrong estimates of the magnitude of causation due to the presence of bidirectional causation) can be avoided by using explanators (regressors) that are necessarily exogenous, such as physical explanators like rainfall amount (as a determinant of, say, futures prices), lagged variables whose values were determined before the dependent variable's value was determined, instrumental variables for the explanators (chosen based on their known exogeneity), etc. See Causality#Statistics and economics. Spurious correlation due to mutual influence from a third, common, causative variable, is harder to avoid: the model must be specified such that there is a theoretical reason to believe that no such underlying causative variable has been omitted from the model.

Examples of illogically inferring causation from correlation

B causes A (reverse causation or reverse causality)

Reverse causation or reverse causality or wrong direction is an informal fallacy of questionable cause where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.

Example 1

The faster that windmills are observed to rotate, the more wind is observed.

Therefore, wind is caused by the rotation of windmills. (Or, simply put: windmills, as their name indicates, are machines used to produce wind.)

In this example, the correlation (simultaneity) between windmill activity and wind velocity does not imply that wind is caused by windmills. It is rather the other way around, as suggested by the fact that wind doesn't need windmills to exist, while windmills need wind to rotate. Wind can be observed in places where there are no windmills or non-rotating windmills—and there are good reasons to believe that wind existed before the invention of windmills.

Example 2

In other cases it may simply be unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. For example:

Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more violent.

This could easily be the other way round; that is, violent children like watching more TV than less violent ones.

Example 3

A correlation between recreational drug use and psychiatric disorders might be either way around: perhaps the drugs cause the disorders, or perhaps people use drugs to self medicate for preexisting conditions. Gateway drug theory may argue that marijuana usage leads to usage of harder drugs, but hard drug usage may lead to marijuana usage (see also confusion of the inverse). Indeed, in the social sciences where controlled experiments often cannot be used to discern the direction of causation, this fallacy can fuel long-standing scientific arguments. One such example can be found in education economics, between the screening/signaling and human capital models: it could either be that having innate ability enables one to complete an education, or that completing an education builds one's ability.

Example 4

A historical example of this is that Europeans in the Middle Ages believed that lice were beneficial to your health, since there would rarely be any lice on sick people. The reasoning was that the people got sick because the lice left. The real reason however is that lice are extremely sensitive to body temperature. A small increase of body temperature, such as in a fever, will make the lice look for another host. The medical thermometer had not yet been invented, so this increase in temperature was rarely noticed. Noticeable symptoms came later, giving the impression that the lice left before the person got sick.

In other cases, two phenomena can each be a partial cause of the other; consider poverty and lack of education, or procrastination and poor self-esteem. One making an argument based on these two phenomena must however be careful to avoid the fallacy of circular cause and consequence. Poverty is a cause of lack of education, but it is not the sole cause, and vice versa.

Third factor C (the common-causal variable) causes both A and B

The third-cause fallacy (also known as ignoring a common cause or questionable cause) is a logical fallacy where a spurious relationship is confused for causation. It asserts that X causes Y when, in reality, X and Y are both caused by Z. It is a variation on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and a member of the questionable cause group of fallacies.

All of these examples deal with a lurking variable, which is simply a hidden third variable that affects both causes of the correlation. A difficulty often also arises where the third factor, though fundamentally different from A and B, is so closely related to A and/or B as to be confused with them or very difficult to scientifically disentangle from them (see Example 4).

Example 1

Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache.

Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache.

The above example commits the correlation-implies-causation fallacy, as it prematurely concludes that sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor, in this case going to bed drunk, which thereby gives rise to a correlation. So the conclusion is false.

Example 2

Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life.

Therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia.

This is a scientific example that resulted from a study at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. Published in the May 13, 1999 issue of Nature, the study received much coverage at the time in the popular press. However, a later study at Ohio State University did not find that infants sleeping with the light on caused the development of myopia. It did find a strong link between parental myopia and the development of child myopia, also noting that myopic parents were more likely to leave a light on in their children's bedroom. In this case, the cause of both conditions is parental myopia, and the above-stated conclusion is false.

Example 3

As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.

Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

This example fails to recognize the importance of time of year and temperature to ice cream sales. Ice cream is sold during the hot summer months at a much greater rate than during colder times, and it is during these hot summer months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming. The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water-based activities, not ice cream. The stated conclusion is false.

Example 4

A hypothetical study shows a relationship between test anxiety scores and shyness scores, with a statistical r value (strength of correlation) of +.59.

Therefore, it may be simply concluded that shyness, in some part, causally influences test anxiety.

However, as encountered in many psychological studies, another variable, a "self-consciousness score", is discovered that has a sharper correlation (+.73) with shyness. This suggests a possible "third variable" problem, however, when three such closely related measures are found, it further suggests that each may have bidirectional tendencies (see "bidirectional variable", above), being a cluster of correlated values each influencing one another to some extent. Therefore, the simple conclusion above may be false.

Example 5

Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO₂ level and obesity levels have increased sharply.

Hence, atmospheric CO₂ causes obesity.

Richer populations tend to eat more food and produce more CO₂.

Example 6

HDL ("good") cholesterol is negatively correlated with incidence of heart attack.

Therefore, taking medication to raise HDL decreases the chance of having a heart attack.

Further research has called this conclusion into question. Instead, it may be that other underlying factors, like genes, diet and exercise, affect both HDL levels and the likelihood of having a heart attack; it is possible that medicines may affect the directly measurable factor, HDL levels, without affecting the chance of heart attack.

Bidirectional causation: A causes B, and B causes A

Causality is not necessarily one-way; in a predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey numbers, but prey numbers, i.e. food supply, also affect predator numbers. Another well-known example is that cyclists have a lower Body Mass Index than people who do not cycle. This is often explained by assuming that cycling increases physical activity levels and therefore decreases BMI. Because results from prospective studies on people who increase their bicycle use show a smaller effect on BMI than cross-sectional studies, there may be some reverse causality as well (i.e. people with a lower BMI are more likely to cycle). 

The relationship between A and B is coincidental

The two variables aren't related at all, but correlate by chance. The more things are examined, the more likely it is that two unrelated variables will appear to be related. For example:

• The result of the last home game by the Washington Redskins prior to the presidential election predicted the outcome of every presidential election from 1936 to 2000 inclusive, despite the fact that the outcomes of football games had nothing to do with the outcome of the popular election. This streak was finally broken in 2004 (or 2012 using an alternative formulation of the original rule).
• The Mierscheid law, which correlates the Social Democratic Party of Germany's share of the popular vote with the size of crude steel production in Western Germany.
• Alternating bald–hairy Russian leaders: A bald (or obviously balding) state leader of Russia has succeeded a non-bald ("hairy") one, and vice versa, for nearly 200 years.
• The Bible code, Hebrew words predicting historical events supposedly hidden within the Torah: the huge number of combinations of letters makes appearances of any word in sufficiently lengthy text statistically insignificant.

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument.

However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence. Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation. For example, social workers might be interested in knowing how child abuse relates to academic performance. Although it would be unethical to perform an experiment in which children are randomly assigned to receive or not receive abuse, researchers can look at existing groups using a non-experimental correlational design. If in fact a negative correlation exists between abuse and academic performance, researchers could potentially use this knowledge of a statistical correlation to make predictions about children outside the study who experience abuse, even though the study failed to provide causal evidence that abuse decreases academic performance. The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer, as did biologist and statistician Ronald Fisher.

Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation alone cannot be used as evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. It is one of the most abused types of evidence, because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.