Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Democrats Could End Discriminatory Prison Sentencing Rules

By Jackie Jones, Black America Web. Posted November 28, 2006.


Prison reform advocates say that the new Democratic majority in Congress may end America's sentencing policy which has black defendants receiving substantially more prison time for drug possession.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Jackie Jones

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A new Democratic majority in Congress may finally be able to push through a recommendation from the U.S. Sentencing Commission to end the disparities in crack versus powdered cocaine sentencing, reform advocates say.

Critics of the current sentencing policy say it discriminates against black defendants who get substantially more prison time for possession of much smaller amounts of crack than those convicted of possession of powdered cocaine.

A conviction for possession of 500 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence, but it only takes five grams of crack cocaine to get the same sentence.

"Over-incarceration within black communities adversely impacts those communities by removing young men and women who could benefit from rehabilitation," Carmen Hernandez, president-elect of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified before at a commission hearing two weeks ago. "Drug amounts consistent with state misdemeanors become federal felonies, resulting in disenfranchisement, disqualification for important public benefits, including student loans and public housing, and significantly diminished economic opportunity. As a result, many of these persons become outsiders for a lifetime, and their families suffer incalculable damage and suffering."

The Commission held a daylong public on Nov. 14 at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., with testimony from judges, lawyers, law enforcement officials, the ACLU, the NAACP and the Fraternal Order of Police. The commission has recommended three times to Congress that the sentencing gap be narrowed.

A bill pending in Congress, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) would reduce the penalty for crack cocaine and raise the penalty for powder cocaine and would also shift the emphasis from the quantity of the drug possessed to the type of criminal conduct related to possession.

For example, the bill would increase penalties for violent crimes and for dealers who use women and children as couriers. It would decrease penalties for those who play minimal roles in the distribution of drugs, for example a girlfriend or a child of a dealer who was not compensated for carrying or delivering the drugs.

Current sentencing policy "is a gut civics lesson in how difficult it is to undo policy mistakes," said Dr. Gail Christopher, director of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute.

"Legislators make laws; they don't unmake them," Christopher told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "Laws such as 'three strikes-you're out,' and zero tolerance haven't been informed by research but by headlines and reaction."

Christopher said she is hopeful that the Democratic majority in Congress -- particularly in the House where Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.), who have been outspoken supporters of sentencing reform will now have key committee positions -- will be able to push through legislation correcting sentencing inequities.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who was an early supporter of heavier punishment for crack cocaine charges, told the sentencing commission that the discrepancy in sentencing had become "unconscionable."

In his testimony, Walton said that punishment must be fair. "And just as important, the punishment must be perceived as fair. While I cannot categorically say that some degree of difference in punishment for crack and powder cocaine is not warranted, no reasonable justifications exist for the 100-to-1 disparity."

Walton, a former federal prosecutor who was a deputy drug czar in President George H.W. Bush's administration, told BlackAmericaWeb.com that he never anticipated that the disparity in sentencing would become so great.

"It creates a perception of the judicial process," Walton said. "I have heard comments from jurors and prospective jurors and a large percentage of African-Americans feel the criminal justice system is not fair."

Walton said that unfairness, real or perceived, not only impacts those being sentenced, but threatens the fabric of the judicial system for black Americans.

"I have a profound interest in making sure our criminal laws work properly. Obviously we fought very long and hard to give people the opportunity to participate in the criminal justice system as jurors, and if they're opting out of the process because they believe it's unfair" it defeats the purpose of giving black Americans the chance to have a say in the judicial process, Walton said.

"I just think the disparity, however it is fixed," he said, "needs to be fixed."

"We definitely support eliminating the crack/powder cocaine disparity," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates no differentiation between sentences for the two different types of cocaine.

Piper told BlackAmericaWeb.com that the Sessions bill "is a step in the right direction, but we don't think it goes far enough" in ending the disparities.

Raising the threshold for the amount of crack needed to trigger the mandatory sentence and lowering it for powder cocaine doesn't really solve the racial disparity, Piper said.

"You're lowering the prison time for African-Americans who are usually charged with crack possession and raising it for Hispanics who usually are charged with powder cocaine. That's a tradeoff we found unacceptable," Piper said.

"Beyond the racial disparities, the (federal) thresholds for crack and powder are too low to get people into diversion programs" on the local court level, Piper said. "The emphasis ought to be in the lower courts to get people diverted to (drug treatment and recovery) programs and the (federal) focus ought to be put on the big dealers."

Piper said that 2002 federal figures showed only about 7 percent of those facing federal charges for cocaine possession were major traffickers.

"If anything, we shouldn't be talking about grams; we should be talking about kilograms," he said.

Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, told the commission that the FOP was not opposed to adjustments in sentencing, but the organization believed that crack had a more deleterious affect on communities and deserved to be weighted more heavily than powder cocaine. The FOP, he said, wanted to ensure "reasonable mandatory minimums" based on the quantity of the drug in a defendant's possession.

"We believe that the sentencing guidelines should include additional aggravating factors -- the presence of firearms or children, use or attempted use of violence are a few examples -- in the determination of a final sentence," Canterbury also said.

Piper said he thought the Sessions bill was dead for this Congress, but "I think with the Democrats taking over (in January) will give it a boost. Now there is an opportunity for a true bipartisan bill."

"I think it has to be absolutely (a bipartisan effort)," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas.) told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

She said she has been active with her Democratic colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee since coming to Congress in 1995, trying to get sentencing disparities ended.

"One of my first votes was to end cocaine sentencing disparities, not because I believe in drug use, but because I believe in fairness," Lee said.

She said she believes the bipartisan will exists to change the law and give the judiciary the flexibility it needs to hand down more equitable sentences, "so we have to have a new framework."

After this week's hearing, the sentencing commission is likely to work with all three branches of government to develop a new policy plan. It may publish proposed amendments in January, hold another hearing on March and possibly sponsor a panel or two on the issue. The commission has until May 1 to submit any proposed legislation to Congress.

The commission can change sentencing guidelines, but Congress has the final say on mandatory minimum sentences.

"I would hope with the kind of thoughtful thinking between Republicans and Democrats," Lee said, "we would want to be above worrying about criticism that we are soft on crime and reform the system."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: prison

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This story goes hand-in-hand with the Robert Gates story
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 28, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice juxtaposition. The crack sentencing laws were passed at the same time that the Contras were funding their activities by shipping cocaine into the inner cities of the United States via Honduras. Ollie North and the CIA actively looked the other way; they were busy with the Iran-Contra arms shipments. That's the story that Gary Webb broke (see the story at http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/42882/).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

can they vote?
Posted by: edith on Nov 28, 2006 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats seem quite pleased with themselves that they cut into the independent vote in the Nov. election. The independents are largely white, college educated and middle class. they vote in greater percentages than minorities, and especially minorities who are poor. furthermore as of now, felons don't vote in most states(they can't I should say). so sentencing reform could keep some kids from a criminal record(good) but from the Dem viewpoint these votes are not equal to the votes of suburban voters who may not be fond of lightening sentences of drug dealers and armed robbers whose lawyers use drug defenses to secure lower prison terms.

Basically, no one except a few african american members of Congress really care about the "constituency" that this article's reform proposals would affect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: can they vote? Posted by: rsaxto
» and not just voting - CORI laws too Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Questions
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 28, 2006 1:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok I got a few-

1. What portion of the population is commiting drug crime? Do we look at black people and assume that they are criminals?

2. Are we targeting minorities? Or are they really to blame for rampant crime in this nation?

3. Are we un-necessarily over-sensitive about all of this?

I am not rascist, I just am looking for informed answers- please back up with fact, not opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Questions Posted by: Boomerang
» RE: Questions Posted by: Burton
» I don't mean to be rude Posted by: Boomerang
» RE: Questions Posted by: kathat
better
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 28, 2006 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true there is an unfair drug law that punishes blacks more than whites and it should be fixed. But there are many unfair laws on the books and all of these unfair laws should be fixed both at the federal and state levels. We need an unfair law commission that will label all the unfair laws and point them out to the public and to their creators so they can be fixed. Or maybe we should just vote against all the people that create all of these unfair laws. What a mess! The Bushies in particular are geniouses at creating unfair laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: better Posted by: laoma
Why women?
Posted by: cmd on Nov 28, 2006 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Above it talked about extra punishment for using women and children as couriers. Children-okay definetly see the point. But women are adults and have just as much responsibility if they traffic drugs as men. I don't see why employing women as your drug trafficers is more immoral than employing men. Am I missing something or is this just another subtle reminder that the government considers women to be dumb and unable to make their own decisions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why women? Posted by: nunezam
membelle
Posted by: dellb on Nov 28, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us not forget that this new Democratic majority is only 27 votes in the House and only 1 vote in the Senate. And with many of the new Democrats claiming a conservative orientation, we may find that all the hoped for new legislation is only a pipe dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: membelle Posted by: laoma
» RE: membelle Posted by: Boomerang
Why not real change?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 28, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If anything, we shouldn't be talking about grams; we should be talking about kilograms," he [Piper] said.

Absolutely. Make possession of "personal" amounts legal, and crack down hard on importers. The druggies just want their fix, be it crack, cocaine, or heroine. The importers and distributors are the ones driving the violence that the higher sentences for crack possession were supposed to address. It is time to recognize that the method of going after abusers to solve the drug problem and most drug-related violence in this country is an abject failure.

It is sad that drugs often destroy lives. We have to bear the fact that is the decision of the individual that he/she destroy their lives, and that they are choosing to make their loved watch them self-destruct. We must offer ready support--even tax-payer subsidized--for those who want to stop their destructive behavior; we must back off and let those who don't want our help to live their lives as best they see fit, absent our support (especially tax-payer subsidized).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Other War We Are Losing
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 28, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America declared a war on drugs and it is over. Drugs won, gangs won, law enforcement won (by expanding is size, powers and budget) and everyone else lost. The streets are no safer, the drugs are everywhere, gangs are more powerful and widespread, our civil liberties are under attack, many of our police have been corrupted, our prisons are overflowing and it has helped make our border more porous.

Those building prisons, running prisons for profit, selling equipment to law enforcement and those pimping for all of it have made out very well. We got stuck with the bill. Our civil liberties have been the ones trample. Our streets have been filled with non-drug offenders released early because of overcrowding due to mandatory sentencing for drug crimes.

Like I said, drugs won and we lost. It's time to change course and de-criminalize simple possession and crush manufacture and large scale distribution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LEGALIZE HEMP and STOP FUNDING THE PRISON GUARDS !
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 28, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, Phil Angelides got a nice big bag of money from the prison guard unions and was silent about Arnold's veto of the hemp bill which even Tom McClintock STRONGLY supported. No wonder Arnold got a fucking free pass !

P.S.: It is no coincidence that here we are banning the cultivation and growth of a crop that would save America from the "war" on drugs and terror all the while allowing the prison industry complex to lock up mainly non-violent offenders and the military industry complex to fight wars for oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bunk!
Posted by: vkobaya on Nov 28, 2006 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll be satisfied when they institute, automatic, instant death penaltyfor powder cocaine and reward crack users with high, high, high office such as "leader" of the free world, Commander-in-Chief and Grand Wizard of the KKK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Addressing wrong problem
Posted by: tuxperger on Dec 1, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is not that sentences are 'discriminatory'. That's just a symptom of a deeper problem.

Metaphor: It's like a calculator that produces 2 x 3 = 7, but 3 x 2 = 8. The problem is not that the calculator isn't commutative, it goes deeper...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement