Pubdate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007
Source: Newsweek (US)
Column: Facing Facts
Copyright: 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/309
Author: Ellis Cose, Newsweek Web Exclusive
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

THE HARM OF 'GET TOUGH' POLICIES

The Supreme Court's Ruling On Federal Cocaine Sentences Could Be A 
Turning Point--Toward Justice And Righting An Old Wrong.

For two decades, the United States has pursued, prosecuted and 
sentenced cocaine offenders in a way that borders on 
insanity--targeting petty criminals over serious drug dealers--while 
fostering contempt, instead of respect, for the policies that have 
sent tens of thousands to jail. On Monday, the Supreme Court said 
enough was enough and empowered federal judges to reject sentencing 
guidelines rooted in hysteria and ignorance. The move has 
considerable support on the federal bench. It allows judges "who 
actually see the people and understand the local community," to 
better consider their communities' best interests, said Jack B. 
Weinstein, a federal district judge in New York.

The significance of the issue--and the enormity of the shift in 
expert opinion--was underscored a day later. The U.S. Sentencing 
Commission took the unprecedented step of announcing, unanimously, 
that nearly 20,000 federal inmates convicted of crack possession 
could apply for (relatively small) reductions in sentences. "In this 
business, you don't get too many good days … Now, two in a row," said 
Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based organization 
that tracks criminal-justice trends.

The court's two 7-2 decisions--authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 
John Paul Stevens, respectively--contained no rousing rhetoric; they 
methodically built on the logic of two prior opinions. But Ginsburg's 
ruling catalogued, at length, criticisms of federal cocaine policy. 
"This may be the first sentencing decision since the mid 1980s that 
actually talks about justice, that seems to have some blood in it," 
said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's drug law reform project. 
Boyd compared the potential impact of Ginsburg's decision to the 
famous Brown v. Board of Education desegregation ruling. "When the 
Supreme Court says that something is wrong, the other institutions of 
government pay attention," said Boyd.

Ginsburg's carefully worded decision did not exactly say the Feds 
were wrong, but it explicitly gave federal judges permission to reach 
that conclusion on their own. The case revolved around a former 
Marine who had fought in Desert Storm and had no prior convictions 
and a good work record. Police found Derrick Kimbrough and a 
companion in a car with crack, powder cocaine and a gun. Kimbrough's 
guilty plea to four felonies should have sent him to prison for at 
least 19 years. The trial judge noted that had Kimbrough possessed 
powder cocaine in the same quantity as the combination of powder and 
crack, his potential prison time would have been more than halved. 
Judge Raymond Jackson split the difference, sentencing Kimbrough to 
15 years. The appeals court said he was out of line; the Supreme 
Court ruled he was not.

On its face, the debate was over how much deference had to be paid to 
the guidelines; but it was also over whether those guidelines made 
sense. For embodied in them was the notion that a defendant caught 
with 50 grams of crack should face the same penalty as one with 5,000 
grams of powder cocaine. Yet, crack is nothing more than powder 
cocaine and baking soda dissolved in water that is boiled away. And, 
as Ginsburg pointed out, they "have the same physiological and 
psychotropic effects." So why is possession treated so differently?

The answer lies in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. In crafting the 
law, Congress concluded that someone dealing a small quantity of 
crack was the functional equivalent of someone dealing a large 
quantity of powder. Why conclude such a strange thing? Eric Sterling, 
then assistant counsel to the House Committee on the Judiciary, 
fingers an "expert consultant" named Jehru St. Valentine Brown. A 
narcotics detective when not advising Congress, Brown convinced 
legislators that "a trafficker in 20 grams of crack cocaine was 
trafficking at the same 'serious' level … as a trafficker in 1,000 
grams of powder cocaine," said Sterling. Given such expert advice, it 
made sense to treat the drugs very differently--all the more so given 
the widespread conviction that crack was a superaddictive drug, 
spawning crack babies and rampant violence on a scale society had 
never before encountered. Fear took the place of science, leading the 
sentencing commission to adopt and build upon the 100-to-1 scheme 
embodied in the statute.

The result has been a tragic playing out of the law of unintended 
consequences. Instead of focusing on dangerous drug kingpins, federal 
efforts have been mostly directed at people possessing relatively 
small amounts of crack. Only 7 percent of federal cocaine cases are 
directed at high-level traffickers, with a third of all cases 
involving quantities that weigh less than a small candy bar, says 
Sterling, who now runs the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation: 
"Street-level crack dealers are actually punished 300 times more 
severely than high-level cocaine powder traffickers on a 
punishment-per-gram basis." To add to the mess, drug policy has 
become highly racialized. As Ginsberg noted, approximately 85 percent 
of those convicted of crack offenses in federal court are black--even 
though more whites use crack than blacks. The numbers, says Sterling, 
reflect "conventions of law enforcement" and a predisposition toward 
"prosecuting a class of lowlifes who happen to be people of color."

Whether this is indeed a watershed moment is yet to be seen. Even the 
Supreme Court's influence is limited. In the end, "all the courts do 
is interpret the law," said Deborah Small of Break the Chains, a New 
York nonprofit promoting drug-policy reform. But Judge Weinstein is 
among those who believe things are changing. "There is a sense of a 
turning point," he told NEWSWEEK. "And partly it's due to economics. 
The cost [of the current path] is tremendous, to the community and to 
taxpayers."

For more than a decade, the sentencing commission has been urging 
Congress to rethink the law and its crack-powder ratio to no avail. 
This year, the commission took matters in its own hands and slightly 
reduced the sentencing disparity. And it again appealed to Congress 
to change the underlying law. The message is simple: it's not just 
that the "get tough" policies of the 1980s don't work; they actually 
do harm--by, among other things, undermining faith in the fairness 
and efficacy of the justice system itself. The Supreme Court finally 
has noticed that. It's time that Congress did the same.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom