By all accounts my birth year, 1986, was a good year - we had Hands Across America span the United States, Prince and the Revolution pounded out the tunes, Chernobyl pulsated radiation throughout the Ukranian countryside, and crack cocaine was king. OK, maybe it wasn't such a great year.
Back in '86, Congress passed exceedingly strict laws dealing with the rock"" form of cocaine. Under the revised statutes, cases that involved crack were punished 100 times more strictly than powder cocaine.
For example, a conviction for the possession of 5 grams of crack (about the size of two sugar cubes) warranted the same sentence as the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. That is, $500 worth of crack, as compared to $40,000 worth of powder. The legislation also gave crack cocaine the
distinguished position as the only controlled substance for which any possession charge warranted a minimum sentence - to the tune of five years.
There was a litany of reasons behind the initial sentencing discrepancies. The media is partially to blame. In the '80s, many outlets sensationalized the violence and erroneously emphasized the damaging effects of crack compared to powder cocaine.
Regardless as to what motivated the increased sentences, 20 years later data has arrived. U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs testified before Congress that, among other things, crack and powder cocaine are pharmacologically identical. They are simply two forms of the same drug.
Based on similar logic, in December 2007, the Sentencing Commission, an independent body created by Congress to determine sentencing parameters for Federal crimes, voted to retroactively apply relaxed sentencing guidelines to lessen the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Under the revised parameters, about 20,000 inmates are eligible to have their cases reviewed with the hopes of having up to 27 months reduced from their initial sentence.
The current U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has taken exception with this arrangement, saying ""1,600 convicted crack dealers, many of them violent gang members, will be eligible for immediate release into communities nationwide ... produc[ing] tragic, but predictable results."" He has asked Congress to not enact the legislation retroactively - so that it may only affect those who are sentenced after March 3, 2008. Even though it may strain the U.S.
Attorneys and the justice system to retroactively work these cases, the measures are a necessary step toward equality.
Mukasey is obviously scared, but should we be? Maybe. After all, we have taken thousands of non-violent drug offenders, ranging from infrequent to habitual users, and thrown them into an overcrowded prison system. They have spent half a decade surrounded by a constant milieu of violence and racially segregated gangs. If the individuals did indeed have a drug problem before they went into prison, due to budget cuts or prison policy they most likely did not receive adequate counseling and treatment.
In fact, we put them into a prison system where drugs are easily accessible and abuse is much higher, per capita, than the neighborhood from which they most likely came. They have spent half a decade fostering a deep distrust for law enforcement coupled with a feeling of injustice. Due to inadequate funding, those that went into prison generally do not acquire the skill sets to live according to the law upon release.
These circumstances were created through complacence and the misguided policy of legislators. It certainly isn't a simple issue, but is it now ethical to deny the rights of those who have been able to avoid further criminal entanglement during their stay in prison?
This fear mongering is purposely misleading. Mukasey is aware these offenders must first petition a judge who will also consider filings from prosecutors and parole officers, after which, the judge can reduce the sentence. Judges would not reduce sentences for violent offenders, or those whose conviction involves a weapon. In effect, all the legislation does is return some discretion to the judges which mandatory minimum sentences usurped.
While this debate has raged lately, the bigger issue remains. As of right now, the 100:1 ratio law still remains on the books - the Sentencing Commission only took the first step, but Congress must now act to erase the law.
Biden has proposed an act which places crack and powder cocaine on equal footing. Biden's proposal does not tighten the restrictions on powder cocaine, but lowers crack penalties to equal the current cocaine legislation.
It also removes the mandatory minimum sentence, giving judges final discretion in the matter of incarceration.
The proposal earmarks funding which will attempt to reach users through treatment rather than incarceration. The proposed statutes will target cocaine ""kingpins"" and mass distributors instead of low-level dealers only seeking to feed their own habits. It will attack the source, rather than the symptom. All it needs now is congressional support.
Maybe we can finally undo this damaging precedent, after all - there has been a lot of talk about justice and equality recently, but maybe it's just because this is an election year.
Regardless, this issue isn't about condoning drug use. It isn't about being ""soft on crime."" This is wholly a matter of justice. This is a matter of the punishment fitting the crime. And, as much as we may deplore the crime, we must remember that the criminal, ultimately, deserves equality under the law.
Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
