Crack Time: New Sentencing Guidlines May Free Thousands of Inmates

In the largest single act ever to reduce the sentences of federal prisoners, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has produced guidelines that took effect last Monday, potentially letting free more than 20,000 inmates. The commission, which sets the rules to guide federal judges, reduced recommended sentences for federal crack cocaine offenders last year and has now made those reductions retroactive. 1,600 inmates convicted of possession or distribution of the the drug are available for immediate release based on their less-dangerous status, but 18,000 more violent inmates will be available for release in following years.

Crack cocaine is the cheaper and less pure version of powdered cocaine, and was developed in the early 1980's. With its emergence, there was an increase in murders and other crimes associated with the drug; typical of the introduction period of any illegal drug as dealers compete for shares in the new market. Media coverage claimed an epidemic and soon Congress instated the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986. The act aimed to curtail violence related to the sale of crack by imposing mandatory minimum sentences to arrests concerning the drug. Possession of five grams of crack cocaine (equal to about two packets of sugar and about the daily consumption of an addict) would result in no less than five years in prison. This statute was significant because it created a huge gap in punishment for crack versus powdered cocaine related offenses. The disparity in conviction criteria was not small; after the act was instated, a person must have been caught with one hundred times as much powdered cocaine to have received the same conviction as if caught with crack. In fact, crack cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger the federal mandatory minimum sentence of five years. on the other hand, under the same circumstances powdered cocaine possession of any quantity is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year.

Much controversy surrounded the act, and continues to this day. Opponents of the regulations protest it as clandestine racism considering that about 85% of crack defendants in the U.S. are Black and only about 6% are White. Conversely, most powdered cocaine convictions, resulting in far more lenient sentences, involve Whites. Many advocates and organizations claim that the policy reflects one of our justice systems most blatant and unjust forms of institutional racism. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has since filled four special reports over the last two decades, specifically focusing on the crack vs. cocaine sentencing disparity, all of which until this past month have been ignored or held up by congress.

But it is not simply an issue of race when it comes to the sentencing disparity. Those supporting the more severe punishments associated with crack over powdered cocaine cite important differences between the two forms of the drug. The United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(c) assigns the aforementioned 1:100 ratio between crack and powder cocaine offering five main reasons for the distinction: (1) crack is more addictive than powdered cocaine; (2) there is a greater relationship between crack and serious crimes than with other drugs; (3) crack has a more dangerous physiological effect than powdered cocaine; (4) young people are more prone to use crack than powdered cocaine; and (5) cracks affordable cost per dose leads to more widespread use.

But mainly opponents contest Congress's reasoning for the overwhelming disparity. They acknowledge some (research has shown that crack is not more addictive than powdered cocaine) of the distinctions as warranting more severe punishment, but denounce the hundred-fold quantity criteria as grossly excessive. With all of their work, the Sentencing Commission's recommendations only resulted in a 50% decrease in quantity regulation. Thus, 5 grams of crack is equivalent to 250 grams of cocaine instead of 500 grams, and sentences are only slightly reduced. Mandatory minimum sentences are still in effect for crack cocaine simple possession, meaning that even with small amounts and no proof of intent to sell, federal trafficking charges can be litigated. As such, low-level crack dealers and first-time offenders receive an average sentence of ten years and six months; which is 59% longer than the average sentence for rape and only 18% shorter than the average sentence for murder.

So while it seems disturbing that 20,000 criminals might be released from prison, the ones eligible now are only the least violent and least likely to commit another crime, and the release is not automatic. Each eligible prisoner's case must be reviewed and a judge must consent with the release. These prisoners therefore face a slow and expensive process of freeing themselves from the prejudiced system that incarcerated them for an excessive period of time. This is not to argue that criminals shouldn't be punished or that drugs shouldn't be illegal, but any government system purporting to advocate justice must do so in a just and egalitarian manner. If Congress is not convinced that the punishment of crack possession is too severe, then they should at least recognize the punishment for cocaine possession is by comparison, too lenient.

Crime and drugs do often come hand in hand, but law makers are clearly reluctant to recognize that substance abuse is an illness that can be treated. Substance Abuse Disorder is a psychological condition defined in the DSM-IV-TR, and has many treatment paradigms and significant rehabilitation potential. Yet in the late twentieth century, our justice system shifted away from policies of rehabilitation back to inflexible and unproductive principles of retribution. Too many people suffering from addiction are being incarcerated with violent criminals because we are quick to label drug users as morally flawed and hopeless. Considering the disparate conviction of crack cocaine use against Blacks, we must either acknowledge the institutional racism upholding this legal trend, or recognize a psychological susceptibility resulting from societal racism and oppression of the Black community.