DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Proportionality Can the legislature set any penalty it wants for a drug crime or is its severity capped by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive punishments? Should the law enforcement employ the same methods in trying to catch a murder suspect as in apprehending a marijuana smoker? The excerpts from opinions written by our top judges are illustrative in making out the courts' approach to these issues. Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7›
[A] mandatory 5-year sentence is prescribed for distribution of 500 grams of cocaine or 5 grams of crack. [...] Simple possession of 5 grams of crack also produces a mandatory 5-year sentence. The maximum sentence for possession of any quantity of other drugs is one year...
With one prior felony drug offense, the sentence for distribution of 50 grams of crack is a mandatory 20 years to life. [...] With two prior felony drug offenses, the sentence is a mandatory life term without parole. [Under the sentencing scheme of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation.] [...]
I should take care myself to reserve judgment about a possible case significantly unlike this one. All of us are concerned not to prejudge a claim of authority to detect explosives and dangerous chemical or biological weapons that might be carried by a terrorist who prompts no individualized suspicion. Suffice it to say here that what is a reasonable search depends in part on demonstrated risk. Unreasonable sniff searches for marijuana are not necessarily unreasonable sniff searches for destructive or deadly material if suicide bombs are a societal risk.
[...]
We recognized in Wilson that the knock-and-announce requirement could give way "under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence," or "where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given." 514 U.S. at 936. It is indisputable that felony drug investigations may frequently involve both of these circumstances.
[...]
Although the mandatory-minimum statute and the Guidelines both turn upon drug quantities, the Commission itself has noted that mandatory minimums are both structurally and functionally at odds with sentencing guidelines and the goals the guidelines seek to achieve." United States Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System 26 (Aug. 1991).
"The sentencing guidelines system is essentially a system of finely calibrated sentences. For example, as the quantity of drugs increases, there is a proportional increase in the sentence. In marked contrast, the mandatory minimums are essentially a flat, tariff-like approach to sentencing. Whereas guidelines seek a smooth continuum, mandatory minimums result in 'cliffs.' The 'cliffs' that result from mandatory minimums compromise proportionality, a fundamental premise for just punishment, and a primary goal of the Sentencing Reform Act." Id., at iii. [...]
Entrusted within its sphere to make policy judgments, the Commission may abandon its old methods in favor of what it has deemed a more desirable "approach" to calculating LSD quantities ... We, however, do not have the same latitude to forsake prior interpretations of a statute. True, there may be little in logic to defend the statute's treatment of LSD; it results in significant disparity of punishment meted out to LSD offenders relative to other narcotics traffickers. (Although the number of doses petitioner sold seems high, the quantities of other narcotics a defendant would have to sell to receive a comparable sentence under the statute yield far more doses, see United States v. Marshall, 908 F.2d 1312, 1334 (CA7 1990) (Posner, J., dissenting), aff'd sub nom. Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 114 L. Ed. 2d 524, 111 S. Ct. 1919 (1991).) Even so, Congress, not this Court, has the responsibility for revising its statutes. Were we to alter our statutory interpretations from case to case, Congress would have less reason to exercise its responsibility to correct statutes that are thought to be unwise or unfair.
[...]
|
|