The U.S. Sentencing Commission recommends lighter minimum sentence for Crack
Since 1986, a defendant convicted in federal court of trafficking in crack would get the same five-year minimum sentence as a defendant trafficking in cocaine powder. The only difference is that a defendant trafficking in cocaine powder would need 500 grams of it to warrant the minimum five-year prison sentence, while the other defendant would only need 5 grams of crack to get the same sentence. Crack is mainly used by inner-city poor; due to its higher cost, cocaine powder has, until recently, been a drug prevalently used by the rich(er) members of society. Both are essentially the same drug. It doesn’t take a sharp mind to realize the social effect of the disparity in sentencing guidelines.
But, finally, something is being done about it:
“The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to lower the recommended sentencing range for those caught with 5 grams or more of crack cocaine from 63 months to 78 months to a range of 51 months to 63 months. Those with at least 50 grams should serve 97 months to 121 months in prison, not 121 months to 151 months, as the guidelines now say, the commission said late Friday. ”
COMMISSION RECOMMENDS LIGHTER MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR CRACK COCAINE CONVICTION
Unfortunately, it seems that the Commission’s recommendations might not carry as much weight as it might seem from the article:
“This is the fourth time the commission, an independent agency in the judicial branch, has recommended that Congress narrow the sentencing gap. Previous recommendations, which were not adopted, have included raising the penalties for powder cocaine and lowering them for crack.”
Quoted from the article above
Turning to our nation’s highest court would confirm how toothless the Commission’s recommendations can be. In Neal v. United States (1996), Justice Kennedy writes:
“Once the Court has determined a statute’s meaning, it adheres to its ruling under stare decisis and assesses an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against that settled law. It is the responsibility of Congress, not this Court, to change statutes that are thought to be unwise or unfair.”
So, the ball is squarely in Congress’ court (no pun intended, I suppose). I wonder how many Congressmen would vote for [sic] softer punishments for crack dealers…
For more on the impact of this disparity in sentencing guidelines, see the excerpts from the dissent by Justice Stevens in United States v. Armstrong et al. (1996).
admin :: May.02.2007 :: Cocaine and Crack, Sentencing and Penalties :: No Comments »