One Step Taken Towards Ending the War on Drugs, One Hundred More to Go

For over 20 years, federal criminal law has abided by a congressionally-created "100-to-1" ratio rule, in which possession of every gram of crack cocaine is treated as the equivalent to possession of 100 grams of powder cocaine. Under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, any defendant accountable for five grams of crack cocaine receives the same mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison as someone accountable for 500 grams of powder cocaine; raise the weight to 50 grams of crack, and the mandatory minimum of ten years is the same as it is for 5,000 grains of powder.

To be clear (and as the Supreme Court noted yesterday), crack and powder cocaine are "two forms of the same drug." Crack is formed by dissolving powder cocaine and baking soda in boiling water, creating a solid substance that is then divided into single-dose "rocks." The drugs have the same "physiological and psychotropic effects", it is simply that those effects are more quickly and intensely obtained when crack cocaine is smoked than when powder cocaine is snorted.

Putting aside the utter failure of the drug war as a whole, the outrageous 100-to-1 sentencing disparity cannot be justified scientifically, ends up punishes the low-level street pusher more frequently, and as harshly, as the high-level drug trafficker, wastes fiscal resources, and has had a markedly disparate impact on poor people of color, who have borne the brunt of this sentencing inequality. Moreover, until recently, federal judges had been rendered discretion-less when sentencing drug offenders, unable to deviate from the mandatory (and very harsh) United States Sentencing Guidelines, even when they thought such downward departures appropriate.

The bad news is that our disastrous drug war still rages on, the inexplicably lopsided 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder still exists, and federal judges are still heavily handcuffed in their ability to hand out reasonable prison terms to drug offenders.

The good news is that the Supreme Court has loosened those handcuffs just a bit and taken very small but significant steps, including yesterday, towards recognizing the problem with the 100-to-1 ratio and the inflexibility of the Sentencing Guidelines. Two years ago, the Court ruled that mandatory sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment and thus held the Guidelines to be advisory, not mandatory, allowing judges to vary from the Guidelines' sentencing ranges.

Yesterday, the Court weighed in on the issue as it specifically applied to the 100-to-1 ratio, having to decide whether a judge's decision to sentence someone outside the Sentencing Guidelines, based specifically on the gross disparity between crack and cocaine offenses, is inherently unreasonable. More specifically, under the facts of the case before it, the Court had to decide whether the District Court's decision to sentence Derrick Kimbrough to 15 years in prison (followed by 5 years of post-release supervision) for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine (and related charges), instead of sentencing him to between 19 and 22 1⁄2 years, as the Guidelines advised, was per se unreasonable, since the District Court based its decision on what it referred to as the "disproportionate and unjust effect that crack cocaine guidelines have in sentencing", noting that had Kimbrough possessed an equivalent amount of powder cocaine instead, his sentence range as suggested by the Guidelines would have been cut by more than half to roughly between eight and nine years.

The Supreme Court held that the District Court's rationale was not unreasonable, thus ruling that a judge can base his or her departure from the Guidelines on the unfairness of the 100-to-1 crack/powder ratio, and thereby allowing sanity to snatch a small yet significant victory from the jaws of defeat (i.e., our deranged drug policy).

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.