If you actually read the article and the many citations, it’s a strong data-based approach.
As a review of the federal sentencing guidelines status quo, sure. As a source of proposed remedies, no.
I didn't go into the article looking for an argument that there were problems with that system and the application of it. I had prior knowledge there, and fleshing it out further wasn't my only reason to read this.
I went into the article looking for the proposed remedies (and a ounce of hope that they wouldn't be as hollow as the headline suggested). If they had limited the scope of the article to the problem they wish to describe, I'd agree with you. But the headline and the "lol, trump" paragraphs aim the article higher. Those aspects don't stick to the tough data-driven no-nonsense image fivethrityeight tries to convey.
As a review of the federal sentencing guidelines status quo, sure. As a source of proposed remedies, no.
I didn't go into the article looking for an argument that there were problems with that system and the application of it. I had prior knowledge there, and fleshing it out further wasn't my only reason to read this.
I went into the article looking for the proposed remedies (and a ounce of hope that they wouldn't be as hollow as the headline suggested). If they had limited the scope of the article to the problem they wish to describe, I'd agree with you. But the headline and the "lol, trump" paragraphs aim the article higher. Those aspects don't stick to the tough data-driven no-nonsense image fivethrityeight tries to convey.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.