U.S. Sentencing Commission Makes Crack Sentence Changes Retroactive
Today the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to retroactively apply the new penalty scheme for crack offenses it developed in response to a reform bill that Congress approved at the end of last year. Under the old rules, five grams of crack triggered the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as 500 grams of cocaine powder, while 50 grams of crack was treated the same as five kilograms of powder, earning a 10-year mandatory minimum. Congress reduced that unjust, irrational disparity, making it 18 to 1 instead of 100 to 1. Although that law does not apply to people who are currently serving one of the statutory minimums, the commission's vote means the new ratio can be used to shorten the sentences of prisoners who fell below, between, or above the cutoff amounts. The commission estimates that retroactivity will make more than 12,000 crack offenders, 85 percent of whom are black, eligible for shorter sentences. (The criteria recommended by Attorney General Eric Holder, by contrast, would have reduced that number to 5,500.) Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, comments:
Making these new guidelines retroactive will offer relief to thousands of people s who received unfair sentences under the old crack cocaine law. However, despite today's victory, sizeable racial and sentencing disparities still exist, and it is time for our country to seriously rethink mandatory minimums and a one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing. Based on little more than politics and urban myth, the sentencing gap between powder and crack cocaine has been devastating to our African-American communities.
Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, adds:
The Commission once again has played its rightful role as the agency responsible for developing sound, evidence-based sentencing recommendations. In fact, if Congress had listened to the Commission fifteen long years ago when it first called for crack sentencing reform, today's vote might not have been necessary….
The ball is now in Congress's court. To finish the job, Congress must now make the mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine retroactive.
In a 2007 column, I explained why there was no rational basis for the crack sentencing disparity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Although that law does not apply to people who are currently serving one of the statutory minimums, the commission's vote means the new ratio can be used to shorten the sentences of prisoners who fell below, between, or above the cutoff amounts.
Maybe I'm a little muddleheaded today, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does this mean that if you were caught with 49.9, or 50.1 grams, but not 50g exactly, of crack then you'll get out early?
Hopefully Lamar Smith isn't on the committee that would have to approve this.
Wake me up when the mandatory maximum is 0.
Isn't the ball also in President Obama's court? Can't he simply commute the sentence of those who are in jail down to the new level?
The disparities were unacceptable, but in retroactively reducing such do we set the table for retroactive penalty increases for other things?
Of course the sentencing rules weren't rational--they were put in place to appease a lot of the same people who want them changed now.
Greetings Now i'm for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.
thanks