RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Fair Sentencing Act: A (Small) Step Towards Making Things Right

by Johnathan Smith 07-29-2010

I want to tell you a story.  It’s a tale about drugs, prison, race, and justice (or the lack thereof).

It starts in the 1980s.  During that decade, crime was rampant, and many believed they knew who the culprit was:  crack cocaine.  It was widely agreed that crack cocaine was an extremely dangerous drug leading its users to commit wanton acts of violence.  Spurred by this, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and President Reagan quickly signed the measure.  This law established a 100-to-1 disparity in sentences for individuals caught with crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine, even though both stem from the same product (the leaves of the cocoa plant) and contain the same active ingredient.  Thus, someone caught with 5 grams of crack (the equivalent weight of two sugar packets) receives a mandatory 5-year prison sentence whereas that same person would have to be caught with 500 grams (around a pound) of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence.  If that same individual is found with 10 grams of crack? 10 years in federal prison.

It is a gross understatement to remark that imposing such harsh, unforgiving sentences is overly punitive.  But what’s worse?  Congress was wrong.  Scientific evidence has unequivocally debunked the myth that crack cocaine is more dangerous than powder cocaine or that it leads to more violent tendencies among users.  So thousands of people have been carted off to prison and forced to deal with the life-altering consequences of a long prison sentence even though we now conclusively know there is no valid penological reason for doing so.

Yet that’s not the end of the bad news in this story.  Although the vast majority of crack cocaine users are white, African Americans account for approximately 80% of those convicted in federal courts for crack cocaine offenses.  As Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill) has commented:  “The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African Americans at six times the rate of whites and to the United States’ position as the world’s leader in incarceration.”  Simply put:  the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity was created based on misguided policies and beliefs and has been enforced in a manner that unfairly targets and penalizes African Americans, exposing the nefarious role that racism plays in our criminal justice system.

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which has garnered support from all along the political spectrum, seeks to narrow the disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.  The measure was passed unanimously by the Senate in March and approved by the House of Representatives this week, paving the way for President Obama to sign the bill into law (he has previously spoken out against the disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine users).  If he does so, a decisive step will have been taken to correct this fundamental miscarriage of justice.

We can’t stop here though.  The sentencing disparity within the Fair Sentencing Act (18-to-1) is fairer but still unjust.  It is still based on antiquated, racist ideas about drugs and crime that have not only been thoroughly discredited, but that have also decimated African-American communities by disrupting families and careers with exceedingly long prison sentences for minor drug possessions.  It is worthwhile to applaud Congress and President Obama (assuming he signs the bill) for their actions — but our representatives in Washington and around the country should pledge to continue reforming sentencing laws until they are truly just.  Crack and cocaine users should be treated equally; there should be no disparity at all.

The “tough on crime” mentality that has pervaded our nation makes it incredibly easy — and perhaps even tempting — to think that locking up people and throwing away the key is the best way to promote our collective safety.  However, our nation’s policy of oppressive crack sentences has, for the most part, been directed at low-level users and sellers, not the kingpins who are financing and sustaining the drug trade, meaning that drugs continue to pour into our communities.  All we are left with are laws and policies that are unjust, unfair, and enforced in racially discriminatory manners as well as the terrible consequences they leave behind.  They should be repealed.

The Christian community played an instrumental role in lobbying for the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act — many Christians publicly condemned the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity; Pat Nolan, the vice president of the Christian prison outreach and criminal justice reform organization Prison Fellowship penned a thoughtful and persuasive op-ed in support of the bill in The Washington Times.  Let’s keep up the good work, and ensure that the Fair Sentencing Act isn’t the end of this story.

portrait-johnathan-smithJohnathan Smith is a New York-based lawyer. He also serves as a youth minister at Gethsemane Baptist Church.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • FDR encouraged the removal of Prohibition because, and only because, he feared a loss of respect for the concept of law. And the truth is that it did work, at least in the beginning, as alcohol consumption dropped precipitously.
  • WaveTossed
    Blue Deacon wrote: "I think, however, that there's another issue to be concerned about here. Crack came to my hometown, just outside a major city, in 1988, and we saw gang warfare the likes of which we hadn't seen before, with people literally shooting each other in the street; families with children understandably started moving out, among other things."

    If you study the years of alcohol prohibition, exactly the same sort of things happened -- people shooting each other.

    I saw a very interesting episode on A&E of the reality series "Intervention." Each episode of "Intervention" features an addict (of alcohol, various other drugs, gambling, etc.) being confronted by family members and offered treatment. If the addicted person refuses, then full consequences ensue.

    Last night's program featured a mother who had been addicted to crack for 30 years. She had been in and out of prison repeatedly; the children's grandmother was raising the children. Finally this woman was confronted by her children, the grandmother, and other family members plus a counselor who specializes in intervention. She accepted the offered treatment at a long-term treatment center. At the very end of the program, it was reported that the addict was still in treatment and had been clean of drugs/alcohol for several months. The addict/mother was interviewed and expressed gratitude for the intervention, the treatment, and for being clean and sober.
  • WaveTossed
    "Those who say legalize drugs, and crime will go away...well I guess in a way that makes sense if you think doing away with all laws and making everything legal...makes sense. Making drugs legal and heavily taxing them makes no sense. Why, because if your local drug abuser who has no job, and cannot afford to buy the "now" legal drug with a high tax on top of the price of the drug to boot, will likely steal in order to be able to "buy" the now legal drug. Or the drug abuser will simply walk into the "now legal drug store" and steal the drug without paying for it."

    Which is already happening with booze. So should we make booze illegal? Sounds like a great idea. The problem is that making booze illegal simply didn't work. All we got was more violence.

    Once drugs other than alcohol are made legal, then dealers will be no more violent than liquor store owners.

    I'm not saying that making booze legal solved all of our problems. There are problems with too many liquor stores being located in lower-income neighborhoods. The same thing would probably happen if drugs (other than alcohol) were to be made legal. The answer is education, more education -- and more treatment options offered for addicts. Simply banning booze and drugs just drives the problems further underground.

    Needless to say, ANY violent crimes committed while high on drugs (including alcohol) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But right now, our prisons are chock-full with non-violent drug users/small-scale sellers who need treatment rather than jail. This is causing huge problems with jail/prison overcrowding that allows violent criminals to be released on probation/parole due to lack of space.

    Here in Maryland, we have had a rather notorious recent case. A high-achieving college student was murdered by two recently-released criminals who never should have been released -- but the jails were overcrowded with non-violent drug users.
  • tmurray
    Those who say legalize drugs, and crime will go away...well I guess in a way that makes sense if you think doing away with all laws and making everything legal...makes sense. Making drugs legal and heavily taxing them makes no sense. Why, because if your local drug abuser who has no job, and cannot afford to buy the "now" legal drug with a high tax on top of the price of the drug to boot, will likely steal in order to be able to "buy" the now legal drug. Or the drug abuser will simply walk into the "now legal drug store" and steal the drug without paying for it. Or, is the theory that once all drug are made legal, all drug abusers will wake up the next day and be honest law abiding citizens and will only acquire drugs when they can afford them.....people, use the brain the Lord gave you....please!
  • I think, however, that there's another issue to be concerned about here. Crack came to my hometown, just outside a major city, in 1988, and we saw gang warfare the likes of which we hadn't seen before, with people literally shooting each other in the street; families with children understandably started moving out, among other things. The feds eventually sicced RICO on one particular gang that was causing much of the trouble, but the damage was done and the town has never recovered.

    My point is, of course, that crack caused violent tendencies not among the users but the sellers. (I'm not trying to justify the sentencing disparity, only giving a possible explanation.)
  • KathyG
    I've long advocated packing pot like cigarettes and taxing the heck out of it like they do cigarettes and alcohol. All states have passed the "You must be 18 to buy cigarettes" laws why not add pot to it?
  • WaveTossed
    Eaglerock, we are on the same page on this. The so-called "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If you study the era of alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century, you will see very similar patterns of gang wars and violence that we see now, in the era of drug prohibition.

    I agree that people sometimes destroy themselves with misuse of drugs including alcohol. But the founders didn't design for the government to legislate over peoples' private lives. If someone wants to fry their brains out, the Nanny State can't stop them.

    The so-called "drug wars" have caused all sorts of civil liberties and constitutional violations, including the death of the 6 year old girl, certainly collateral damage in the "drug war."
  • Eaglerock
    I couldn't agree more, but for some slightly different reasons. When our ancestors wanted to prohibit alcohol, they had enough respect for constitutional governance to pass an amendment giving the government the power to do so. They did not base their legislation on the twisting of the interstate commerce clause out of all proportion by activist jurist.

    The federal government does not really have the constitutional authority to dictate what and individual eats or consumes. It has unlawfully usurped the authority to do so.

    The whole "war on drugs" thing needs to be revisited by saner heads, that do not take liberty so lightly.

    While it is a shame that people destroy their lives and the lives of their loved ones with this trash, making them criminals for harming themselves is what despotic regimes across the world do, not advocates of liberty.

    We need a new approach to battling drug abuse as the war on drugs has been a dismal failure. It has caused as much or more pain for our society as the drugs themselves! Like the 6yr old girl recently killed by a paramilitary type drug raid on her parents residence. Should we call them the Gestapo?
  • WaveTossed
    Nuclearferret wrote: "They should increase the sentence for cocaine possession and use to match crack, not let more of these criminals out on the streets again sooner. Keep them from poisoning our neighborhoods and communities and away from decent people."

    Should we bring back alcohol prohibition? After all, the drug known as alcohol kills more people than all of the other drugs combined.

    Let's get the Nanny State to keep us all moral and decent!
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Just so long as they don't build that "correctional facility" in your back yard, right Nuke?
  • nuclearferret
    They should increase the sentence for cocaine possession and use to match crack, not let more of these criminals out on the streets again sooner. Keep them from poisoning our neighborhoods and communities and away from decent people.

  • Sin_Boldly
    Prosecuting and imprisoning people for possession of "crack Cocaine" based upon faulty and incorrect research, and then on top of that selectively prosecuting said persons so as to effectively skew convictions resulting in a disproportionate number of "persons of color" being imprisoned for a crime disproportionately committed by "whites" is not right or just and should be remedied. That is all the writer says. Whether he is correct or not is a separate issue. But, certainly he is not guilty of the charge you leveled against him. Nor, I dare say upon a general reading of past articles at this site, is Sojourners.
  • WaveTossed
    Drugs should be legalized and regulated, the same as alcohol. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and neither is drug prohibition. Legalizing drugs will stop all of the crime and violent drug wars. I'm sure that some people remember Al Capone and all of the alcohol gang wars during alcohol prohibition.
  • Patricia
    Hijack - walk away from the jet way :).
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008