Final answer:
Sentencing disparity does not have a legal basis but rather results from discriminatory practices and other extralegal factors, such as the historically notorious disparity in crack versus powder cocaine sentencing. Deterrents like harsher sentences aim to decrease crime rates but can have mixed results, and factors like race, gender, and income can influence sentencing outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether sentencing disparity involves a legal basis for differences in the type and length of sentences imposed for the same crime is false. Sentencing disparity refers to variances in sentencing for a similar crime that are not based on legal distinctions but often the result of discriminatory practices or other extralegal factors. Such disparities have been a significant topic in the discussion of the history of jails and prisons in America and the treatment of inmates.
In the criminal justice system, especially notable has been the difference in sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine, where a stark sentencing inequity stood at a ratio of 1 to 100 before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced it to 1 to 18. Additionally, discrimination and disparities are evident in police practices, with Black, male, less educated, and lower-income offenders often facing longer sentences.
Deterrence has been a principle behind longer sentences, with the thought that it would reduce crime rates. However, the effectiveness of such strategies is mixed, with some deterrent efforts like 'Scared Straight' programs actually leading to an increase in criminal behavior amongst youth.