"A White Skinned Cop,
Subdues a Drug addled, Combative, black skinned Felon, the way he was taught to.
And will get 40 years in Prison because he died.

A Black Skinned Cop,
Killed White Skinned Woman in pajamas,
in cold blood,
who was posing no threat whatsoever.
Gets 12 years in prison, and will be out in 6."


 That sounds like the US judicial system for sure, but if we are going to compare crimes to race and sentencing we would have to cut this off at law enforcement and homicide.

 Compare drug crime, or sexual assault cases and black skinned first time offenders typically get longer sentences than white skinned first time offenders.

  There's volumes of studies showing case law breakdowns on crime type to sentencing duration.  I'm not sure how much is "racist" by definition, but I don't think the Chauvin case is racist, they didn't even find grounds for hate-crime.

"Of course that has nothing to do with the ‘white bread’, 20 year old, buying drugs for the first time,
and getting caught because they simply don’t know how to avoid, the Law.
    VS
The person who from walking age has been tutored by peers on how to avoid/spot/evade/circumvent, and lie to the Law,
And beyond a shadow of a doubt it is far from, ’the first time’."


 In Judicial proceedings a "first time offender" is to be treated as if this is the "first time offense".  There are thousands and thousands of examples of this in case law and jury instructions.  If a judge is assuming they are a multi-offender and increasing the sentencing based off of evidence not presented in the case they would be in violation of the law.

 If you were in court for defending yourself with a firearm would it be legal for the judge to assume you must have been wanting to shoot someone based off of the - beyond a shadow of a doubt - knowledge of how many guns you have and how often you shoot them?

 No it wouldn't, unless that was presented as evidence in the case.

 Now if the assessment is being done outside the parameters of the law one of the questions would be: Is it based on race?

Wanting to shoot someone changes nothing. If the person getting shot is creating a threat that getting shot for is reasonable.  Go ahead
Make my day.

"Wanting to shoot someone changes nothing. If the person getting shot is creating a threat that getting shot for is reasonable.  Go ahead
Make my day."

 This is correct.

 But MnSpring proposes one take external or non-presented evidence into consideration on sentencing which is illegal.

 Your "want" to shoot someone is only applicable if it was presented as evidence.

 My point is it is only racist if the non-presented evidence was evaluated based on race.

So you are saying,
If someone decided that,
a person has had prior experience buying drugs,
because of the color of their skin.
It is Raciest.

 

 Yes.  And it would be illegal if they used that parameter outside of presented evidence in the case.  Historically white males get shorter sentences for first time offenses that, by law, are to be treated as a first time offense.



Yet if someone decided that,
a person has had prior experience buying drugs,
Based on their actions/speech/attitude,
It is not Raciest ?

 Yes.  Actions, Speech and Attitude are not a race.  However it would be illegal if the actions, speech or attitude were used outside of evidence presented in the case.  Historically white males get shorter sentences for first time offenses that, by law, are to be treated as a first time offense.



"Or do the, ‘actions/speech/attitude’, have to be brought up in in testimony/evidence, to not be Raciest?
If they were simply observed, then it is, Raciest?"

 Actions Speech and Attitude are not a race.  It would be illegal to use any of those as a sentencing guideline outside of evidence presented in the case.  Historically white males get shorter sentences for first time offenses that, by law, are to be treated as a first time offense.



Or is it Raciest anytime, a defendant has different color skin, then the person doling out the sentence?

 A different color of the skin of the person doling out the sentence is not a requirement to be racist.  The reason for altering the sentence, if based on race, is racist.


Or does it make a difference, which one has a lighter or darker skin?

 It does not make a difference.  If the reason for altering the sentence is based on race it is racist.


 If a sentencing decision is based off the race of the defendant it is racist.   Race is the reason for racism so race would be the required factor for making a racist decision.