 November
15, 2006 - Associated Press (US)
Judge: Cocaine Sentencing Disparity 'Unconscionable'
By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A federal judge who served as a top drug
policy advisor to the first President Bush and advocated harsher
penalties for crack cocaine crimes said Tuesday the policy had
gone too far and was undermining faith in the judicial system.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton told the U.S. Sentencing Commission that federal laws
requiring dramatically longer sentences for crack cocaine than
for cocaine powder were "unconscionable" and contributed
to the perception within minority communities that courts are
unfair.
"I never thought that the disparity should be as severe
as it has become," said Walton, who sits on the bench in
Washington, where he previously served as a Superior Court judge,
a federal prosecutor and a deputy drug czar.
The current law includes what critics have called the 100-to-1
disparity: Trafficking in 5 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory
five-year prison sentence, but it takes 500 grams of cocaine
powder to warrant the same sentence.
Advocates for changing the law point to crime statistics that
show crack is more of an inner-city drug while cocaine powder
is used more often in the suburbs.
The Sentencing Commission which has thrice recommended that
Congress narrow the sentencing gap, is again reviewing the disparity.
Previous recommendations, which were not adopted, have included
raising the penalties for powder cocaine and lowering them for
crack.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration,
indicated Tuesday that it welcomed a discussion about the sentencing
disparity but adamantly opposed lowering the penalties for crack.
November 16, 2006 - San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Editorial: Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines Need Changes
Twenty years ago, Congress passed an unwise, unjust law mandating
long prison terms for people caught with small amounts of crack
cocaine. As a result, small-time users, dealers and couriers
-- overwhelmingly poor black men -- are locked up for years while
big-time traffickers keep cocaine supplies flowing.
The law requires five years in prison for five grams of crack
cocaine -- the weight of a few sugar packets; it takes 500 grams
of powder cocaine to trigger the same sentence. It's time to
change the law.
In 1995, 1997 and 2002, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which
advises Congress and the federal judiciary, called for eliminating
or modifying the 100-to-1 disparity in cocaine penalties. But
nobody wanted to look soft on drugs.
Tuesday, the commission held new hearings. U.S. District Judge
Reggie B. Walton, deputy drug czar in the elder Bush's administration,
called the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity ``unconscionable.''
Minorities see harsh sentences for crack, primarily an inner-city
drug, as proof courts are biased, he said. It's expected the
commission will try again to get Congress to revise the 1986
law.
Federal crack defendants aren't drug kingpins: The commission
estimates 73 percent of crack defendants were low-level street
dealers, couriers or lookouts, writes Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project. ``The commission also
has found that crack cocaine sentences are the single most significant
factor contributing to racial disparity in federal sentencing.''
In 1995, the Sentencing Commission urged equalizing penalties
for crack and powder cocaine. President Clinton and Congress
just said no. Told to try again, the commission suggested a 5-to-1
disparity in 1997. Nothing happened.
In 2001, President Bush supported ``making sure the powder-cocaine
and the crack-cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe
we ought to be discriminatory.''
In 2002, Bush's Justice Department opposed reducing crack
penalties, arguing that crack cocaine causes more violence and
addiction than powder cocaine because it's typically sold in
small, cheap doses. Justice called for reducing the 100-to-1
disparity by raising penalties for powder cocaine.
That's still the administration's position, but there are
signs of good sense in Congress. Earlier this year, bipartisan
legislation was introduced to raise the amount of crack needed
to trigger federal penalties, while lowering the amount of powder
cocaine. Action is possible in 2007.
Just reducing the 100-to-1 disparity isn't enough.
A better idea comes from Eric Sterling, who helped write the
1986 anti-crack law as a House Judiciary staffer. Now president
of the Criminal
Justice Policy Foundation, Sterling argues that the new law
should ``raise the quantity triggers for all drugs to realistic
levels for high-level traffickers, such as 50 or 100 kilos of
cocaine.''
Federal prosecutors should focus resources on the big fish.
State and local authorities can prosecute the small fry.
Back to Dissenting Opinions
of Judges
If you have a Dissenting Opinion of a Federal or State Judge,
please mail or e-mail a copy to:
November Coalition
282 West Astor
Colville, WA 99114
(509) 684-1550
editor@november.org
|
