Charles Murray, a scholar at the leading conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, may be the most influential populizer of racist views in the country. His book The Bell Curve, which posits that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites, practically spawned an entire field of scholarship devoted to debunking it. His most recent book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 even made an appearance on the campaign trial during the recent presidential election.

Murray, however, appears to have set aside his retrograde views about race in order to tout equally backwards views about gender. In a short piece on AEI’s website, Murray recently suggested that “benevolent sexism” might be “healthy.” The only problem is that he appears not to have read the research on which he bases this extraordinary conclusion, which cited strong evidence that “benevolent sexism” was itself linked to discrimination against women and rape victims.

The paper in question, by Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker, studies why “benevolent sexism,” understood as “an ostensibly flattering ideology that idealizes women who conform to feminine norms,” is so commonly accepted by men and women around the world. The authors find that “although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level” by giving men and women a sense of order and structure in their lives.

Though the authors see this as a concern, given that so-called benevolent sexism is net-destructive for women, but Murray believes this is knee-jerk liberal prejudice. “When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy” he asks rhetorically. “Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?”

Had he read the paper in question, and not just the abstract, he would have understood why: there’s a mountain of evidence cited by Connelly and Heesacker that “benevolent sexism” is extraordinarily harmful to women. As Connelly told ThinkProgress, “it’s pretty well documented that benevolent sexism is associated with negative outcomes for women.” As her paper shows, Connelly is putting the point mildly:

Correlational research also suggests that benevolently sexist attitudes contribute to women’s subjugation. For instance, Fiske and Glick (1995) as well as Pryor, Geidd, and Williams (1995) found that benevolently sexist attitudes are associated with beliefs that excuse sexual harassment. In a multinational study, Glick et al. (2000) found that higher national averages of benevolent sexism predicted greater gender discrimination. Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, and Aguiar de Souza (2002) noted that individuals who endorse benevolent sexism tend to hold beliefs justifying spousal abuse. Abrams, Viki, Masser, and Bohner (2003) and Viki and Abrams (2002) demonstrated that men who possess benevolently sexist attitudes reacted negatively to female rape victims who violate traditional feminine norms. Moya, Glick, Expo´sito, de Lemus, and Hart (2007) reported that women who endorse benevolent sexism are more likely to accept men’s behavioral restrictions. Finally, Expósito, Herrera, Moya, and Glick (2010) documented that women who hold benevolently sexist attitudes believe that men will react negatively, and even violently, to a wife’s career success.

There’s also evidence that “merely exposing women to benevolent sexism increased self-objectification” and that “women who read benevolently sexist comments performed worse on a cognitive task and reported increased feelings of incompetence and self-doubt.” So to answer Murray’s question: the authors conclude “benevolent sexism” is bad despite some positive side-effects because that’s what the evidence says. If he wants to challenge that consensus, he’s free to do it — but it would help if he actually weighed the evidence rather than speculating wildly about human nature.

Because a short-term criminal sentence is not necessarily a sentence to suffer with a terminal illness in prison, both the federal government and the states have a process by which those prisoners who have been diagnosed with a fatal illness – or who have some other change of situation such as a dying family member — can apply for release. But the chance of federal prisoners being granted release is exceedingly low, according to a new study by Human Rights Watch and Families Against Mandatory Minimums. While even tough states like Texas let out about 100 people per year on medical parole, the federal system releases on average around two dozen people, out of a population of more than 218,000 inmates. One such inmate highlighted by the report died while in prison for gun possession, despite a plea for release from the judge who sentenced him:

Michael Mahoney was sentenced in 1994 to a mandatory minimum term of 15 years as an “armed career criminal.” The “career criminal” designation derived from three drug sales totaling less than $300 to an undercover agent over a three-week period in the late 1970. Felons, like Mahoney, may not legally possess firearms. Erroneously believing that enough time had lapsed since his prior convictions to allow him to carry a gun, Mahoney had purchased one to protect himself when making night deposits from his small business. When the gun was stolen, he duly reported it to authorities, his error was discovered, and he was prosecuted. Years later, in 2004, Mahoney was dying in prison from lymphoma and asked for compassionate release. The warden at the Lexington Federal Medical Center thought the BOP should file a motion on his behalf, and the regional director agreed.

In late July, BOP Director Harley Lappin denied Mahoney’s request, even though the regional director had approved the request and it was unopposed by the US attorney. Lappin’s decision was based on “the totality of the circumstances” and Mahoney’s “multiple felony convictions.”

On July 26, 2004, Judge James D. Todd, who had sentenced Mahoney, hearing of the director’s denial, wrote to Lappin, stating that in 20 years on the bench he had never before written to a corrections official on behalf of a prisoner he had sentenced. Describing the circumstances of Mahoney’s conviction, he said that “Mr. Mahoney’s case has troubled me since I sentenced him in 1994 … [as] one of those cases in which a well-intentioned and sound law resulted in an injustice.” He said he was aware that Mahoney was bedridden, suffering great pain, and considered near death. He suggested “that … a motion [for compassionate release] is the only way to mitigate in a very small way the harshness which [the Armed Career Criminal Act] has caused in this unusual and unfortunate case.” Lappin did not reply. Mahoney died a few days later.

What’s more, the report documents the extraordinary financial and societal savings that would result from more compassionate releases:

Increasing the number of dying or debilitated prisoners who are granted compassionate release … but would free the BOP from the unnecessary security costs of confining prisoners who pose scant risk of harm to anyone and from their medical costs. The per capita cost of caring for a prisoner in one of the BOP’s medical centers was $40,760 in FY 2010, compared to an overall per capita cost of $25,627. Releasing prisoners who are not suffering from grave medical conditions but who face other compelling circumstances—such as those whose children are destined for the foster care system or who are desperately needed at home to care for dying family members—would advance other important societal goals, such as preservation of the family.

Human Rights Watch senior adviser Jamie Fellner told NPR that she believes it’s the federal prison culture that fosters the alarmingly low rate of release. “They’re in the business of keeping people in prison,” Fellner said.

A similar phenomenon is occurring in the federal process for granting pardons (which revoke convictions) and commutations (which shorten sentences), handled by another arm of the DOJ, the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Some people, including former White House Counsel Greg Craig, have suggested the abysmally low rate of both forms of relief is reason to remove this function from the Department of Justice, and similar measures might prove effective in the “compassionate release” context. The Human Rights Watch report instead suggests reform within both the DOJ and the BOP, which it says is misconstruing its role as a vehicle for recommending motions to the courts.