 |
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON - With Democrats poised to take
control of Congress, law-enforcement officials are preparing to defend two
decades of federal sentencing policies that mandated harsh prison terms on
a variety of crimes and led to a boom in the prison population. Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the incoming chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Robert Scott (D., Va.) have
already said they plan hearings early in the term to look at how
nonviolent drug offenders are punished under mandatory minimum laws. An early target will be the prison terms mandated by Congress for crack-cocaine convictions. Under current law, someone caught with five grams of crack gets a five-year sentence, while it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same sentence, even though there is no physiological difference. Critics have long maintained that the law unfairly
targets African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent. In
contrast, suburban white users tend to prefer cocaine in its powder form. Mr. Conyers has called the crack-cocaine sentences
the “most outrageous example of the unfairness of mandatory minimums.” Democrats are buoyed by recent signals from the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for judges to use in an
advisory capacity when they hand down sentences. Members of the commission
are likely to recommend a change in the crack-cocaine penalties next year,
according to commission members. The commission has tried since 1995 to
bring the penalties for crack crimes more in line with powder cocaine but
the Republican-controlled Congress has ignored past attempts. Soft On Crime
Reversing drug laws, though, is politically
dangerous, for it risks angering law-enforcement officials and police
unions. In addition, it could resurrect the soft-on-crime mantra that
Republicans have long used to bludgeon Democrats. As a result, some
Democrats might be reluctant to be viewed as rolling back harsh sentences
just when the nation’s violent crime is starting to rise. “Whenever you suggest somebody’s sentence is too
long or a policy is too draconian, the immediate reaction in the political
arena is you’re soft on crime and you’re not taking public safety
seriously,” says Alexander Busansky, director of the Washington office
of the Vera Institute of
Justice, a criminal-justice reform organization based in New York. That claim, though, may no longer be as effective, he
adds. Some Republicans have spearheaded efforts to reduce recidivism, and
the effort to address the crack-cocaine disparity has attracted some
bipartisan backing. Nevertheless, law-enforcement officials -- from the
Justice Department to police groups -- are joining forces to oppose any
changes that decrease the severity of the crack penalty, warning that
it’s a slippery slope that could weaken other mandatory sentences. “Our position on crack versus powder has been to
increase the penalty for powder cocaine, not decrease the punishment for
crack,” says Gene Voegtlin, of the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, which represents 18,000 chiefs, department heads and other
law-enforcement officials. Street cops agree with this view as well, says James
Pasco, of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents about 324,000
street-level police officers, deputies and agents. Mr. Pasco says there is
more violence attached to crack-related crimes, making residents in the
communities where these crimes occur -- often poor, urban areas --
prisoners in their own homes. “We’re not opposing this because of its
impact on law enforcement. We’re opposing this because of its impact on
the communities we protect,” says Mr. Pasco. Law-enforcement groups, however, need to push back
not too hard, lest they anger Democrats who control funding over various
programs that benefit local police. For example, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D.,
Miss.), who co-sponsored a crack-powder penalty-equalization bill in the
last Congress, is the incoming chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee. He plans to push an agenda to improve intelligence sharing and
communications ability between federal and local law-enforcement
officials, a key goal for police groups. The police groups’ biggest ally in preventing a
reversal of mandatory minimums will be Republican lawmakers, such as Rep.
Lamar Smith of Texas, who will be the ranking minority member on the House
Judiciary Committee. “The sentencing disparity between possession of
crack cocaine and powder cocaine is a valid issue, and I look forward to a
discussion next year,” says Mr. Smith. “But we need to remember that
the drug trade is directly linked to the level of violent crime in
America. This week, the [Federal Bureau of Investigation] reported the
number of violent crimes committed in 2005 rose more than it has in any of
the last 15 years....We need tough drug laws that deter drug abuse -- not
increase it.” At least one advocacy group that opposes the
mandatory minimums believes the debate is being couched incorrectly. Julie
Stewart, founder and president of Families
Against Mandatory Minimums, says lawmakers should look at the
crack-cocaine sentencing and decide whether it is fair on its own merit,
not in comparison with powder cocaine. “The problem is not powder cocaine. The problem is crack,” she said. If five grams is not an amount handled by a major trafficker, “then let’s figure out what quantity is more reflective of someone who is dealing at a higher level,” she said. “We shouldn’t be focused on ratio between the two.” |
|
We are careful not to duplicate the efforts of other organizations, and as a grassroots coalition of prisoners and social reformers, our resources (time and money) are limited. The vast expertise and scope of the various drug reform organizations will enable you to stay informed on the ever-changing, many-faceted aspects of the movement. Our colleagues in reform also give the latest drug war news. Please check their websites often. |
|
|
 |
