Pubdate: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 Source: Daytona Beach News-Journal (FL) Copyright: 2007 News-Journal Corporation Contact: http://www.news-journalonline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/700 Note: gives priority to local writers Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?244 (Sentencing - United States) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Sentencing+Commission Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/crack+cocaine Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine) CRACKHEADED DISPARITIES Welcome Move Toward Fairer Drug Sentences Semantics and racist laws aside, crack and cocaine are essentially the same thing. A cocaine hit lasts longer. A crack hit is more intense. Crack rocks are sold in tiny portions, giving the illusion of being cheaper than cocaine. In fact, high for high, crack is more expensive. Figure in the punishment for crack possession compared with cocaine, and crack becomes a merciless drug. Under federal law, an automatic five-year prison sentence is meted out for possession of 500 grams of cocaine. The same five-year sentence applies for just 5 grams of crack: a 100-to-1 disparity. Why the difference? Because Congress in 1986, when the ratio was set, let racism and hysteria drive policy. Powder cocaine is generally consumed by middle- and upper-class whites. Crack is considered the poor man's cocaine. More specifically: the black and Hispanic man's, and woman's, cocaine. (About 64 percent of crack users are black or Hispanic.) Drug laws focused on the inner-city "crack epidemic" of the 1980s. The epidemic was mostly imaginary. Other drugs' effects were more devastating, especially when alcohol is included in the picture (as it seldom is). The resulting sweep of black and Hispanic crack users into prison was not imaginary. On Nov. 1, new guidelines set forth by the federal Sentencing Commission went into effect, reducing the disparity in punishments. Instead of a minimum of five years in prison, a first-time offense for possession of 5 grams was reduced to four years. Guidelines for trafficking were similarly reduced, from 10-year minimums to eight-year minimums. It was a small, worthy, but incomplete step in the right direction. On Nov. 13, the Sentencing Commission held a public hearing on making its earlier rule retroactive, so that all federal inmates impacted by the longer sentences would have their prison terms reduced accordingly. Again, the impact would be slight, as sentences would be cut by about a year for those eligible. Nothing like a flood of former inmates would hit the streets, and only federal inmates would be affected. Should the new guidelines be adopted, about 3,800 individuals would be released in the next year, 86 percent of them black. The Bush administration is opposing the change on two grounds: Making the new guidelines retroactive would overwhelm the judicial system, as prisoners still would have to petition the court to gain release, and lessening punishments would encourage drug crimes. Both reasons are invalid. If the new sentencing guidelines are fairer for drug offenders from here on, keeping the old guidelines in place for previous offenders means endorsing unfairness for them. Further, the lesser sentences that apply for cocaine offenses aren't encouraging cocaine consumption. The Drug Enforcement Administration says cocaine consumption "has remained stable since 2002." The Sentencing Commission itself emphasizes that its less stringent guidelines are "only a partial solution to some of the problems associated with the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio. Any comprehensive solution . . . would require appropriate legislative action by Congress." That appears unlikely. It's an election season. Candidates don't want to look less than tough on crime, even if toughness, in this case, contradicts justice. But the commission is signaling -- to states' sentencing structures and, with perseverance, to the next Congress and perhaps a wiser president -- that the time for hysterical drug punishments is past. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake