Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
crackcocaine
Crack Cocaine Sentencing Reforms Go Into Effect
03 months ago
Today, more than 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are black — serving time in prison for crack cocaine offenses will have the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.
The sentencing changes are part of the The Fair Sentencing Act that Congress passed in August of last year. The reform bill reduced the 100-to-1 disparity between minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine to 18 to 1. On Tuesday, those already serving time became eligible for a hearing to consider reducing their sentences under the new changes.
Critics of the old sentencing system rightfully argued say that it was unfair to African-Americans, who make up 85 percent of those convicted of possessing and distributing crack cocaine. Under the former system, five grams of crack resulted in five years of prison, while it took someone being caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine to get the same time in prison.
The ACLU’s blog called the changes that went in to effect Tuesday “a huge victory in reducing racial disparities and restoring confidence in the criminal justice system.”
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has done its part to ensure the sentencing guidelines apply retroactively, and the FSA will go a long way in fixing this longstanding injustice. But more is needed.
Even with the changes, there is still an 18-to-1 disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses.
“This is an incremental step in trying to address the disparity, but we think the only fair way to treat these two drugs is to treat them and punish them in the same manner,” the ACLU’s Jesselyn McCurdy told NPR.
An estimated 1,800 inmates became eligible for release immediately Tuesday because they had already served enough time.
The Next Battle for Crack Cocaine Sentence Reform? Congress
07 months ago
The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s decision yesterday to retroactively apply an amendment from the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to inmates is a potential boon for crack offenders who were hit with the old 100-to-1 sentencing guidelines before the law was passed.
The commission voted to apply the 18-to-1 crack sentencing disparity reduction — which was enacted last year after 25 years of the 100-to-1 disparity in punishment of crack offenders and cocaine offenders — to cases where inmates were sentenced before August of last year.
Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union warns that this doesn’t mean all eligible people will be freed. “Not every crack cocaine offender will have his sentence reduced,” she said in a call yesterday. But more than 12,000 people, 96 percent of whom are black and Latino, are now able to go before a judge to seek a reduction.
Judges will decide whether to reduce sentences by weighing behavior in prison, the nature of the offense, and whether a weapon was involved. Federal judge Patti B. Saris, the chair of the commission, said that they expect the average sentence reduction to be by about 3 years, and that offenders will now average around 10 years in prison.
Still, Murphy says, “what we really need is statutory retroactivity,” meaning that Congress has to vote to make the entire Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. The Sentencing Commission vote only applied certain amendments from the act retroactively — leaving things like mandatory minimums in place. “There will be efforts to eliminate the U.S. Sentencing Commission,” she says, which is why having the statute changed by Congress is critical.
And the commission warns, “Many crack offenders will still be required under federal law to serve mandatory five- or 10-year sentences because of the amount of crack cocaine involved in their offenses.”
As Adam Serwer pointed out, the 12,000 men and women eligible for sentence reduction are “less than a fraction of a percent of the more than two million Americans in prison or jail.”
Advocates for prison reform praised the vote as a big step in the right direction. But the NAACP’s Hilary O. Shelton said it’s time to end to the crack cocaine sentencing disparity: “Close the gap and bring it down to 1-to-1.”
Other prison reform ideas are in the pipeline. Murphy says “we need to get rid of mandatory minimums altogether.” And Shelton praised the Justice Integrity Act, a bill introduced by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen that would “promote fairness and the perception of fairness in the federal criminal justice system.” He also called for a reintroduction of 2010′s End Racial Profiling act, suggesting that racial profiling often leads to the encounters that introduce young men of color into the justice system for minor or perceived offenses.
Justice Revisited! Crack Sentencing Reform Applies to Old Convictions
07 months ago
UPDATE @ 2:18 ET: The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted today to apply retroactively sentencing reform for crack cocaine convictions that Congress passed last year. This will give more than 12,000 inmates–85 percent of whom are black–the opportunity to go before a judge and seek a reduction in their sentences. The Commission estimates that the decision will reduce sentences by an average of more than three years, and could save the government $200 million in the next five years. We’ll follow up with more details on the ruling, and what comes next for drug sentencing reform, tomorrow.
+++
A decision expected today from the U.S. Sentencing Commission could potentially free thousands of inmates convicted of crack felonies, if the commission decides to apply retroactively Congress’ 2010 reform of drug sentencing laws.
The Fair Sentencing Act, signed into law in August 2010, was an effort to reduce the huge disparity in punishment of those convicted with cocaine possession or use versus those caught with crack. The law gets rid of so-called “mandatory minimums” and knocks down the disparity in length of sentences from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. So punishment for crack offenders is now 18 times as harsh as it is for cocaine offenders.
“We hope that they will support full retroactivity for the over 12,000 people that would be eligible,” says Jesselyn McCurdy, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
There are three possible outcomes, McCurdy says. One, the commission could decide on full retroactive application of the law. Two, it could settle on limited retroactive application, meaning inmates with extensive criminal records or a weapon involved in their arrest would not be eligible, reducing the number eligible for release to 45 percent. Or three, it could decide to not allow retroactive application at all.
The last outcome is what Texas Republican Lamar Smith and some of his colleagues are hoping for. Smith is one of several who wrote a letter to the commission coming out against retroactivity. Early release, his letter says, “merely gets criminals back into action faster.”
But there’s no evidence that keeping people in jail longer will prevent recidivism. In fact, precedent suggests the opposite is true: In 2007, when the Sentencing Commission last retroactively reduced the length of sentencing for some crack offenders, “recidivism was slightly less than average,” McCurdy says.
Moreover, McCurdy points out, all 12,000 individuals will have to go before a judge who will decide whether to release them, based on a number of factors like behavior in prison or their records. “A judge can say, ‘No, this particular person doesn’t deserve to benefit from retroactivity.’ “
McCurdy says Attorney General Eric Holder’s personal testimony was an encouraging sign. While he only advocated for limited retroactivity, “He came and testified himself. We felt like that was a signal this was an important issue for him.”
She added that Holder was “bucking the trend,” and a letter from the Association of Assistant United States Attorneys in opposition to retroactivity is a sign Holder is facing internal pressure. (The main argument of that group seems to be that U.S. attorneys worked hard to put these people in jail, so don’t let them out.)
A decision in favor of retroactive application would mean more than just giving 12,000 inmates an opportunity to plead for release. Prisoners who were arrested and charged before Aug. 3 of last year–when the Fair Sentencing Act was signed–are in limbo because courts aren’t sure whether to sentence them at the old 100-to-1 rate or the new 18-to-1 rate. This decision could clear that up.
And, perhaps even more important, McCurdy says a decision to reduce prison numbers would be “a great step forward to breaking the addiction this country has to incarceration.”
Obama Signs Drug Sentencing Reform Into Law
01 year ago
This morning President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, a bill that reduces the disparities in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine offenses. Although he didn’t make a statement as he signed the new legislation, the president did say in a speech last week that the legislation would “help right a longstanding wrong” and was “the right thing to do,” reports the New York Times.
The new law mandates that the ratio in sentencing be lessened to 18 to 1 from 100 to 1 –a reluctant compromise by drug sentencing reform advocates.
We’ve reported before that since 1986, a person convicted of simple possession of crack cocaine has gotten the same mandatory sentence as a person with 100 times that amount of powder cocaine — often a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession, not dealing. Those sentences were deeply racially skewed: 85 percent of people convicted of crack offenses are black, even though blacks make up just 30 percent of crack users.
“By signing this reform into law, President Obama will save taxpayer money, reduce racial disparities and better prioritize federal law enforcement towards major crime syndicates instead of low-level offenders,” Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, told The Times.
Congress still has to decide whether to apply the law retroactively.
House Votes to Fix Drug Laws
01 year ago
More good news. The Fair Sentencing Act passed today in the House.
The legislation would reduce disparities in crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing, which has overwhelmingly swelled the black prison population over the past two decades. Since 1986, a person convicted of simple possession of crack cocaine has gotten the same mandatory sentence as a person with 100 times that amount of powder cocaine, reports the AP. And the sentences were almost always racially skewed: 85 percent of people convicted of crack offenses are black, even though blacks make up just 30 percent of crack users.
The new bill mandates that the ratio be lessened to 18 to 1; still not perfect, but much closer to equal and a reluctant compromise by drug sentencing reform advocates.
We noted earlier this week that advocates were pushing for lawmakers to tackle the bill before August recess. They’ve succeeded.
Calling today’s passage a “historic moment,” Jasmine L. Tyler, deputy director for the National Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement: “I’m overjoyed that thousands of people, mostly African American, will no longer be unjustly subjected to the harsh sentencing laws enacted in the 1980s.”
On the compromise, Tyler added, “The compromise is not perfect and more needs to be done, but this is a huge step forward in reforming our country’s overly harsh and wasteful drug laws.”
The bill is now headed to President Obama’s desk where it’s likely to be signed into law.
Push to Fix Drug Laws Before Congress’ Summer Break
01 year ago
As the House gets ready to adjourn for its August recess, prison reform advocates are urging lawmakers to vote on a bill that would lessen disparities between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which was first introduced by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and passed in the Senate back in March, could dramatically reduce the current 100 to 1 ratio down to 18 to 1. The move, while admittedly imperfect and only slightly less racist than its 25-year-old predecessor, is being heralded as a small but important step forward.
Current federal law is crafted around the falsely held, 1980′s-era belief that crack cocaine was more dangerous than its powder counterpart. Passed in 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act mandated that a person holding five grams of crack cocaine get the same punishment as someone moving 500 grams of powder cocaine which, as Adam Serwer pointed out, did little to deter high level drug traffickers.
It did, however, overwhelmingly impact low-level drug users and dealers. More than 80 percent of people arrested for crack have been black, even though most users are white, and over the past two decades the black prison population has swelled as a result. Even law enforcement officials and tough-on-crime judges have called the sentencing disparity wrongheaded and complained that it creates distrust of courts in black neighborhoods.
The absurdity of it all isn’t lost on lawmakers.
Attorney General Eric Holder has called the sentencing “wildly unjust” while Durbin himself seemed reluctantly resigned to back away from equal sentencing last spring, after he was forced to compromise his original proposal.
What’s left is a bill that’s proposing to be slightly less racist than the one before it. On top of decreasing the sentencing disparity, the Fair Sentencing Act would also eliminate the mandatory-minimum of five years in prison for simple possession.
Calls for reform are being led by advocacy groups that include the Sentencing Project, and both the Washington Post and New York Times have published editorials this week urging Congress to fix the disparity.
Photo: Creative Commons/Center for American Progress Action Fund