|
|
|
|
End sentencing disparityTreat crack, cocaine the sameIn the only scientific way to measure them, one gram of crack and one gram of cocaine are the same thing. Pharmacologically, both illegal substances have the same effects-and despite persistent reports to the contrary, both are equally addictive.Yet, if you're caught with five grams of crack, you receive the same mandatory penalties-five years in prison without parole-as if you were carrying five hundred grams of cocaine. That's a one-hundred to one difference. The practical result of the skewed mandatory sentencing guidelines is that the vast majority of the people sentenced under them are African-American and, we would suspect, a lot poorer than those sentenced for cocaine possession. That is where the true difference between the two substances lies. One survey found that more than 90 percent of the people sentenced for possession of crack in 1993 were black. Last week Attorney General Janet Reno and retired general Barry McCaffrey, a White House drug-policy adviser, wrote to the president suggesting that the disparity be narrowed. The fact that more African-Americans are snared by the harsh penalties for crack possession, "has become an important symbol of racial injustice in our criminal justice system. We cannot turn a blind eye to the corrosive effect this has had on respect for law in certain communities and on the effective administration of justice," the letter said, according to the New York Times. McCaffrey and Reno propose changing the minimum sentencing guidelines lines to require a five-year term for those convicted of possessing 25 grams of crack or 250 grams of cocaine. That's a step of the right direction; 25 grams of crack is still less than one ounce. But it seems to us-especially since powdered cocaine is a purer form of the drug than crack-that there ought to be at least parity in the sentencing. (McCaffrey actually preferred that the disparity be close completely, creating penalties the would be the same for possession of both drugs, but was overruled by Reno) The excuse for keeping the tougher sentences for crack possession is that trade in the cheaper drug trade tends to be much more violent, according to the attorney general's office. But that reasoning is flawed. It goes against everything our justice system stands for to subject every person possessing crack to harsher penalties because the trade is a violent one. If there is violence, that is what should be prosecuted. Prosecution sought to be based on what individuals do-not what the other people who use same substance might have done. Every single crack user should not be penalized for the actions of those who are using guns to stake out turf, to try and sell the drug. Word is that even the recommendations of Reno and McCaffrey they don't stand much chance in Congress. No one ever lost votes by being perceived as tough on drugs. But at a time when prisons are bursting at the bars, another look at mandatory sentences is in order. In general, we don't think much of mandatory sentencing guidelines. We believe that is what judges are for. They ought to be allowed to make decisions based on the details of the case. The bottom line is that the drug war will never be won by locking up users who carry less than one ounce of crack.
|
|
|
