Feds cut sentences for crack cocaine

Source: Post-Tribune

New federal sentencing guidelines are set to go into effect today that will reduce the average sentence for a crack cocaine offense by 15 months.

The change, put in place by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, could be applied retroactively, which would mean an early release for more than 260 prisoners in Northern Indiana, and 19,500 nationwide.

... The reason for the sentence reduction is to address a disparity created in the 1980s when Congress established mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

The law set up a system where crack cocaine -- which is made from powder cocaine -- carried much stiffer penalties than its powdered derivative.

Read more: http://www.post-trib.com/news/630662,crack.article

---

The article goes on to note the racial overtones/effects of the old crack cocaine rules. The U.S. Sentencing commission referred to "universal criticism from representatives of the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups."

The question now is whether the new rules will be applied retroactively to people currently incarcerated. The Sentencing Commission is still receiving submissions on that subject, until November 13.

This doesn't seem to be getting a lot of mention in the news in the US -- I heard about it on CNN this morning (flicking around the news channels on cable in Canada). It seems to be a rather significant step in a good direction, although the minimum sentence provisions stay in place.

For comparison, most minimum sentences in Canada are regarded as violations of the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment, although the courts will defer to Parliament's policy decisions in some instances where an important public interest is found to be in issue; murder, repeat drunk driving offences and offences involving firearms are examples.

my point of view may not be popular but, where I live, the crack
problem knows no racial boundries. They will not even lock up the
crack users in my county because then the county has to house them, feed them, and then they get a court-appointed lawyer...etc. This is why they refuse to lock the users up around here, they are a big
financial drain on the county.
The flip side of that is...the users predicated so much more crime.
Many steal and do break-ins to support their habits. We had this
happen and when they finally got through with the crack-head in the
courts, we got 3 restitution checks for .33!!!!! This .99 restitution was for over $5000 worth of tools and equipment. :grr:
I also (from personal experience - have a crack addicted nephew) know that it does not usually matter how long a crack head has been
locked up, the first chance they get after getting released from jail, is to go get some crack.
So....this is what the nation has to look forward to....hundreds of
addicts hitting the streets looking to score. How many will have to
steal to afford that first hit of the crack stem?

has been in treatment for over 15 years. He is a facility where
he is not allowed to come and go at will. The 9 times he has been
released, he escaped home supervision and was smoking crack in less
than 48 hours every time. This man spends massive amounts of money
to keep his son in the best treatment centers, yet I see no change in his
son's behavior. They is a guy near town here that runs a body shop of sorts
out of his garage - he has smoked crack for 18 years. Another 58 year old
fellow down the road lost everything he worked for over crack addiction.
Including his home. I could go on and on and believe it or not, the
majority of the crack heads around here are NOT African-Americans.
Treatment would be preferable, but it should be a certain length of time
stay at a facility. To keep the addict away from his drug buddies, his
connections and his dealer.

We could try something based on...oh, gee, I dunno...21st century science?

Nah. The Anonymous scam is too lucrative to quit just yet.

Now how bout all those new prisons? Bring 'em on ack.

and give life sentences to these chemo patients and college kids:eyes:

It's a war on people of color, people who lack the financial resources to hire an attorney and must rely on underpaid Public Defenders.
The mandatory minimums meant the same amount of cocaine could send you to far more years in prison if it was in rock form, the form the poorest use.
Mandatory minimums have fueled the private prison industry which donates to legislators who promote mandatory minimums that fuel the private prison industry which donates to .....
It is time to decriminalize marijuana, provide treatment to addicts instead of incarceration, fairly fund the public defenders departments, get rid of the mandatory minimums.

The federal prison population has doubled in the last few years, and 55% of federal prisoners are drug offenders.

The crack sentencing laws are horribly harsh and racially discriminatory. 85% of federal crack offenders are black, and they are doing years, sometimes decades, for small amounts of drugs.

We need to end the drug war.

We need to move to a system of regulation and legalization, not prohibition.

We need to deal with people with drug problems in a humane, public health-oriented way.

Above all, we need to get the cops and the courts out of drug policy.

I agree completely.

I have nothing but scorn for cowardly and corrupt politicians who continue this irrational "war on drugs."

We have more people in prison than any other country in the world, in absolute and proportional terms.

When will the insanity end?? When we have courageous politicians who will do the right thing.

I'm not holding my breath.

felonys with mandatory prison sentences.

I don't care if people do drugs, it's all the car thefts etc. that bother me about it.

If it's blacks stealing the cars, lock em up. Same for the whites.

here, in one of the hardest hit hurricane areas, new orleans east, armed gangs are doing home invasions of people trying to rebuilt in new orleans east, in one case wiping out a family of 7 while robbing them

i think once you invade someone's home, all the gloves come off

i don't know or care what color the gang members are, since they are leaving no witnesses alive, right now there is no way to tell, but they do seem to be preferentially preying on the asian and latino community, both believed to have lots of cash around

when they catch these monsters, i would hope they'd never get out

during a really shitty economy, and the last thing they did to get by was to steal things from other people. Yes, they do need to be released, and they will be released eventually, but are we prepared to deal with that many all at once? Where are the community resources going to come from to re-integrate them into peaceful society, so they don't reoffend as the only desperate choice?

Somebody here said they're being released to go into the military to provide more cannon fodder for Iraq, well, with their criminal records, the military doesn't want them, either. What I possibly smell here is the Repukes going along with this, knowing full well that crime will rise during a Democratic Presidency, the majority of those hurt by said crime are going to be urban people in the bluest states, and they will be able to run another "Law and Order" campaign like Nixon did in 1968.

Fewer than 20,000 people in a population of 300 million -- that's going to have some huge impact on the economy, or the crime rate?

I'm not sure that you have any basis for saying "the last thing they did to get by was to steal things from other people", as a universal. I have a good friend (white) who was given slightly more than the minimum sentence for personal-use cocaine (not crack) possession in NY state about 8 years ago, and as far as I know he hadn't stolen anything from anybody. He'd received an insurance settlement for a devastating motorcycle accident, and proceeded to spiral downward into cocaine use, entirely self-funded. Since he'd failed to appear for sentencing -- very reasonably fearing that with a head injury such as he had he would be vulnerable in prison and likely to die there -- he'd been underground for several years until he was finally arrested -- living with his mother and not using drugs. And as far as I know, he's doing fine now.

I think there are probably a lot of individual stories that vary from your generalization -- none exactly like that one, but some that don't involve hardened criminals, certainly.

I would certainly not see society's failure to provide reintegration services, if such were the case, as justification for not releasing people from prison who are plainly in prison as a result of an extremely inappropriate and unjustified sentencing policy.

most drug addicts fund their habit by stealing from friends, family, employers -- anyone they think won't report them -- and when they've destroyed everyone they've ever cared about, then they move onto stealing from strangers

the reality is that almost everyone in prison for a drug crime has committed uncounted crimes against other people before being stopped


i think the other poster has hit the target bullseye -- the point of releasing these prisoners (which WILL have an impact on the crime rate, because each of them will likely commit many crimes before being re-arrested) is to indeed pump the numbers and provide stats to support GOP "law and order" crap -- they create a problem so they can pretend it's all our fault -- they ALWAYS do this, why are we so surprised that evil men will do evil things to stay in power?

What do you propose? That people be held in prison on sentences that cannot be justified because of what they MIGHT DO if they are released?

Why not just hand out mandatory life sentences for anyone caught with crack cocaine?

I know the reality. I lived with it for three years myself. Someone else's problem cost me about $50,000, when you add up the support, the thefts, the forgery ...

What does this have to do with the disparity in sentencing for offences that differ only in WHO COMMITS THEM?


i think the other poster has hit the target bullseye -- the point of releasing these prisoners (which WILL have an impact on the crime rate, because each of them will likely commit many crimes before being re-arrested) is to indeed pump the numbers and provide stats to support GOP "law and order" crap -- they create a problem so they can pretend it's all our fault -- they ALWAYS do this, why are we so surprised that evil men will do evil things to stay in power?

Well ... I'd say I must have wandered off DU and into a twilight zone, but I've learned otherwise ...

is to find a way to fund rehabilitative efforts for these people, if Chimpy vetoes that, then he can be blamed for the crime rate increase that happens as a result of a mass release. No, I don't think it's just to keep them there, but I also find it unjust to simply let them sink or swim in a screwed up economy that practically guarantees they will commit new crimes. Chances are, these new crimes will get them put in the pokey for a lot longer than serving out the original sentences were, and like I said before, it's not going to be well-off white suburbanites bearing the brunt of their crimes.

If the feds don't have the balls to do it, then its mandatory for the states and localities to figure out how to reintegrate these offenders back into the community in a way that minimizes their adjustment. If not, then the result is crime against the most vulnerable of law-abiding society, and a justification to turn things back over to the Repukes. I'm reminded of Fidel Castro's release of the Marielitos, who staged a prison riot in Arkansas, and cost Bill Clinton the only election he's ever lost.

This news item is about the decision to put an end to the unjustified disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine possession and sentencing for powdered cocaine possession in personal-use quantities.

That disparity resulted in grossly disproportionate numbers of African-Americans / poor people receiving long prison terms for essentially the exact same thing done by cocaine users who were white / well off and did not get the same long sentences.

Maybe the white / well-off offenders had committed fewer thefts or other crimes in their career. I wouldn't know. The fact is that we're talking about the sentences they got for crack/cocaine possession, not for being all-round scoundrels or not.

What to do about the depradations of drug use/trafficking, and the disproportionate negative impact of use, trafficking and enforcement on already vulnerable/disadvantaged individuals and communities, is something about which leftists can have much to say.

But even liberals have to agree that racial bias in sentencing guidelines, whether explicit or implicit as in this case, is intolerable.

Yes, people when released are going to have no more supports than when they went in, but also no more supports than they'd have if they were in prison another year or two before release. And it very certainly is not their fault that there are no supports in place for them -- but if they aren't released before the biased sentences they received are up, it is them individually who will be bearing the burden of the bias, and that's just contrary to liberal ideals.

I still don't think that the release of 20,000 people from prisons, who were going to be released in the more or less near future anyway, is likely to have even a measurable effect on crime rates anywhere in the US.

to me, crack cocaine and powder cocaine are essentially the same substance, and deserve the same treatment. I certainly believe that the re-evaluated sentences will be a small step in gaining justice for the people being released.

But I also think that as part of that justice, they should get job counseling and other rehabilitative resources to re-enter the society, to put them in the position where they would be today if they had gotten powder cocaine sentencing. And while 20,000 people in a population of three hundred million is indeed a drop in the bucket, the released are going to inevitably concentrate in the major cities of this country where they will be a bit higher proportion than simple math would lead us to think.

My question revolves around why Bushco would even allow this to happen, and like I said, I smell trouble. The Repukes know they're in deep trouble, they stand not only to lose the White House, but there will be a fillibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. They need to be working on their next strategy to retake the government, and crime in the streets is one of those issues. You can expect Giuliani to thump his chest loudly about it next year. The simple fact is, during the 1990's crime went down all over this country's major cities, not just NYC, and it will be easy for the Rethugs to attribute that to stiffer sentences for crack cocaine adopted during the Reagan administration. I saw them use the riots of the mid 1960's to scare enough voters into pulling the lever for Richard Nixon, we've all seen how they've used terror to that effect.

Most things that go wrong for a political party are unseen, this is one thing that we can do something about. By making sure that we're ready to receive these offenders as they're released is not only compassionate to them, it's looking out for the interests of the citizens in the communities where they're going to be placed. And it deprives the right wing of being able to say, "See, I told you so!" in 2010 and 2012.

Where's the programs to get them off drugs. Oh wait social programs were cut in the first 8 months of the bush administration.

The people we're talking about are those convicted of crack cocaine offenses, not thievery.

Of course, they will face the same obstacles to successful reentry into society that all former prisoners face. We don't make it easy...and that's pretty stupid.

Crack and meth addicts are well known for stealing everything and anything to support their addiction.

People should be held in prison on minor charges for what amounts to cruel and unusual terms ... because of what they MIGHT DO if they're released?

If the sentencing guidelines had not provided for sentences that were so entirely inappropriate and injustified in the first place, would you be calling for life imprisonment for crack users?

Minor theft is not the same as burgulary and car theft btw.

If it's just smoking crack then no problem, but these people usually get arrested for other reasons with the drug charge tacked on.

Do you know most car theives steal more than 10 cars in their life time? Do you know how hard it is for a single working mother to afford to replace her car? How about the dangers of walking in on a house burgurlay. Many people get killed catching home burgulars in the act.

I don't want to hear about your lax on crime with drugs because it's drugs unless you are going to provide solutions to the bigger problem. Until we have a solution to that, they belong in jail.

I don't want to hear about your lax on crime with drugs because it's drugs unless you are going to provide solutions to the bigger problem. Until we have a solution to that, they belong in jail.

The "liberal" has spoken. And I just can't think of anything more to say, any more than I can any other time I hear "liberals" calling for things to be done that I never thought I'd hear a "liberal" calling for ... until I met DU, and USAmerican "liberals" ...

Always makes me glad I'm not one, myself.


I'm still trying to figure out what all this has to do with the fact that sentences for crack cocaine possession (African-American crime) were out of all proportion to sentences for cocaine possession (white crime), but I guess I'll just have to keep scratching my head.

Drug addiction and the criminal actions that come from it?

You act like letting them out ends the problem. All it does is release it back on society.

Moan all you want but the system came up with locking them up for a reason.

Blacks and white inequity has nothing to do with anything I've spoken about so far. I don't have an answer for it. I guess yours is simply let them out since there's an inequity. I don't agree. I would say put whites in at the same rate for the same crimes.

It is about at least reducing the appalling disparity between the way African-American and white offenders are treated in the criminal justice system in this particular way.

The proposal under discussion is that people who were sentenced as a result of that disparity -- who were the victims of obvious racial/class bias in the sentencing guidelines -- be released so that they will not be further disadvantaged by that bias.

You want to keep them in jail. Keeping them in jail is not going to solve "the bigger problem". It is going to perpetuate an inequity that should never have existed in the first place.

I would say put whites in at the same rate for the same crimes.

Good show. You might want to start a thread somewhere on that topic. It has nothing to do with this one.

that far. I focused on druggies being let out of jail.

In the light of unfair sentencing, then I agree to measures to correct it.

I like agreeing. ;)

Then, use the taxes to provide treatment and rehabilitation. That's more logical than locking these people up and doing nothing to turn an otherwise decent citizen back to an asset to his society instead of a drain.

Why not? Is it because they're not paying prohibition-inflated black market prices for their substance of choice?

Maybe we'd be better off just giving them their crack. Seriously.

According to a 2000 study co-sponsored by the Justice Department a black drug defendant is -- 48 times -- more likely to be jailed than a white one with the same record. The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission provides that:

Blacks account for
13 percent of all regular drug users but
35 percent of those arrested,
55 percent of those convicted and
74 percent of those imprisoned for drug possession

Senator Webb's JEC hearing addressed:
Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?

Thursday October 4th, 2007



Black males are disproportionately represented in the prison population and serve longer terms. In a report by the Justice Department it found that 62 percent of people in jails have not been convicted, meaning many of them are awaiting trial.

Based on a General Accountability Office study the total annual federal, state and local system expenditures per prisoner were approximately $154,000.

This means that ten taxpayers would have to work their whole lives to pay for one prisoner with a mandatory sentence of ten years.

If the Sentencing Commission enacts retroactivity, every prisoner who wants his sentence reviewed will have to through a resentencing process in the courts. This could take years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3671900
(emphasis mine)

Right now, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack to trigger the five- and ten-year mandatory minimum sentences under federal law (100:1 sentencing ratio). In other words, powder cocaine offenders who traffic 500 grams of powder (2,500-5,000 doses) receive the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as crack cocaine offenders who possess just 5 grams of crack (10-50 doses). And while the new U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines will have a modest effect on reducing this disparity, it is powerless to do much else. It is up to Congress to change the law that created the 100:1 sentencing ratio.

To address this injustice, Sen. Biden introduced legislation (S. 1711) last summer to eliminate completely the disparity between crack and powder cocaine prison sentences. Specifically, Sen. Biden's legislation – Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act – will:

· Eliminate completely the 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses;
· Eliminate the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only drug for which there exists a mandatory minimum sentence for mere possession for a first time offender;
· Authorize funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs;
· Increase fines for major drug traffickers;
· Provide additional resources for the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Homeland Security for the investigation and prosecution of drug offenses; and
· Refocus federal drug laws on the major cocaine kingpins, not the street corner dealers, leaving States with primary responsibility for low level users and traffickers.

Sen. Biden’s legislation is cosponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Russ Feingold (D-WI). To read more about the U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines going into effect today, please click here: http://www.ussc.gov /

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=286560&

...he's still pretty bad on drug policy. He's the guy who sponsored the RAVE Act.

the legislation criminalized the possession of what amounts to 8 to 10 or more hits of ecstasy, among other measures to deter ecstasy use/promotion among young people, or so the stated intention seems to have been.

I don't really have a lot of problem with that intention, and from what I see the possession offence is aimed at distribution, not possession/use. Am I not getting something?

Here's a story about an overzealous DEA agent in Montana:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/290/dearave.shtml

It was broadly written to intimidate venue owners and could theoretically be applied to things like baseball stadiums if someone was smoking pot there, although to be fair, I haven't heard of any RAVE Act prosecutions lately, and I try to follow such things. Hmmmm, the RAVE Act: Overbroad Threat or Meaningless Gesture?

A current event you may be familiar with:

http://www.cbc.ca/thelens/program_231007.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4477.html


The effort to extradite Marc Emery from Canada to the US is allegedly because he sold cannabis seeds by mail-order into the US -- but the DEA has stupidly made it plain in press releases that it's really because of his outspoken advocacy of legalization.

Another example from the second site:

The DEA wanted to extradite Canadian citizen Dave Licht to face charges relating to a cocaine deal brokered by DEA undercover agents and informants in 1999.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("Mounties") worked with DEA in an entrapment case that saw DEA agents and informants pretending to be Colombian cocaine dealers trying to find Canadian customers. DEA operatives brought cocaine into Canada via a bi-lateral investigatory agreement similar to the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) that was used to investigate Emery.

Licht and other Canadians failed to take the DEA's bait, however, and the Mounties were upset that US cocaine had entered Canada as part of a botched undercover operation that looked more like an attempt to induce crime than an attempt to investigate an already-existing criminal enterprise. The Canadian government backed out of the bi-lateral deal and told the US to keep its agents out of Canada.

But that didn't stop the DEA. The agency ignored Canada's wishes and sent its undercover operatives back into Canada with more cocaine, busted Licht, and then demanded that Canada extradite him to the US.

"The DEA's illegal conduct is extremely offensive because of the violation of Canadian sovereignty without explanation or apology," said Justice Dillon in turning down the US request. "The conduct of a United States civilian police agent entering Canada without the knowledge or consent of Canadian authorities, in defiance of known Canadian requirements for legal conduct, with the express purpose to entice Canadians to the United States to commit criminal acts in that jurisdiction, and acting illegally to offer to sell cocaine in Canada, is shocking to the Canadian conscience. A United States police agent entered Canada without proper immigration status to carry out an illegal activity without the knowledge or consent of the RCMP and knowing that the RCMP had withdrawn consent to further involvement in the reverse-sting operation. This conduct is clearly contrary to Canada's national interests."

The favourite TV show in my living room this year is Intelligence:

http://www.cbc.ca/intelligence/

-- all about DEA violations of Canadian sovereignty and efforts to plant operatives in Canadian agencies, along the lines of the above plot outline.


But: laws and law enforcement can be separate issues. The way that the DEA under the Bush administration uses laws, and the way that courts allow them to do it, cannot necessarily be laid at the doorstep of anyone who supported the laws for an arguably legitimate purpose, nor can it be claimed that a Democratic administration/Congress would pursue that modus operandi. I would hope it wouldn't, but I might be naive.


By the way, the US attitude to cannabis is extremely problematic for Canada. We would have decriminalized possession by now, but for threats of economic retaliation by the US. And because we simply do not put people away for life on cannabis-related charges up here, grow-ops flourish, under the control of criminal organizations that use them to earn revenue through sales in the US that they then use to purchase cocaine and firearms to be smuggled back into Canada. Don't be thinking that I'm a fan of your cannabis laws or your DEA!

There are loads of comments about crack, cocaine, and meth, but none about oxyContin addiction. Oxycontin is an illicit drug of choice for many Americans and its adverse impact on communities is as bad as any other drug mentioned.

crap, seems counterproductive to me

what's wrong w. instead giving the oxycotin junkies stiff sentences? we had one of those creeps hit over 100 (!) vet's offices from florida to louisiana, in a very short amount of time, others of them are doing armed robberies of pharmacies

if i'm sick or my grandmother is sick or my damn dog is sick...i shouldn't have to worry about fuckwits coming into the pharmacy or my vet's office with guns

If someone is violent, put them in jail. Not because they're on drugs...because violence is usually illegal in the first place.

they will be doing the stealing. Thats what call attention to oxycontin, little old ladies in rural America --with zero crime-- turning to crime.

Okay, I'm a foreign agent for Biden. ;)

http://www.joebiden.com/getinformed/opeds?id=0090

... It is not always the illegal drug - smuggled across our border in the dead of night or grown in the far fields of Afghanistan - that parents need to worry about their kids using. Sometimes it's the substance sitting on the shelf in their medicine cabinets.

As Senators who have worked tirelessly to stem the tide of illicit drug and excessive alcohol use, we are alarmed by an emerging scourge: teens abusing medicines such as prescription and over-the-counter drugs. This raiding of the medicine cabinet demands national attention.

According to the annual Monitoring the Future survey, a prominent University of Michigan study of the behaviors, attitudes, and values of teens and young adults, teens' use of illegal drugs has declined over the past five years. But that good news has been accompanied by other bad news. Improper and excessive use of legally available drugs has risen sharply during the same period. Recent studies indicate that 1 in 10 teens - 4.5 million young adults - have used prescription drugs non-medically. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more people age 12 or older recently started misusing prescription pain relievers than started using marijuana. ...

Next, we need to get rid of "kiddie cocaine" - Ritalin.

hey it's progress ain't it?

why give any thought to this. we have no say over it one way or the other.

hut-ho!

in my best Elvis voice

nice.

sounds nothing more than a cost savings measure. nothing more, nothing less.

It was done by the US Sentencing Commission, which has for more than a decade complained that the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity is discriminatory and unduly harsh. The commission has asked Congress to act to redress this injustice repeatedly, but no luck. At least Congress stood aside and didn't block the commission on this.

What would you do with these people? Keep them in prison indefinitely?

Do you think every crack offender is a "crack head"? If so, you might want to educate yourself. It's kind of tough to maintain an addiction when you've been in prison for years.

have fun with that.

I favor treatment on demand.

Even though there is little indication it works any better than people deciding to quit on their own. If it helps some people, that's a good thing.

But you are also presuming that everyone convicted of crack-selling needs drug treatment. That's a huge assumption.

What these guys probably need more than drug treatment is an integrated program to help them re-enter society.

If we don't want to pay for drug treatment or re-entry programs, we're being penny wise but pound foolish.

they are not addicted. Part of any good drug treatment program evaluates the level of addition and treats it accordingly. If they aren't addicted, no problem, but they still need to be screened.

Or are you one of those people that believe that there no drugs in prison?

If a crack addict had been WRONGFULLY convicted of murder and sentenced to die, and then it was proved that someone else had committed the murder, would you be opposing the release of the wrongfully convicted person because s/he was a crack addict and there were no rehabilitation programs in place?

Most of these people were WRONGFULLY sentenced under laws that discriminated against them on the basis of race, by their lopsided impact on African-Americans. (Undoubtedly a few non African-American offenders ended up suffering the effects of the law as well.)

Crack is a proxy for "African-American" and/or poor, cocaine is a proxy for "white" and/or middle class/wealthy.

Imposing a longer sentence on someone caught with crack than on someone caught with cocaine is like imposing a longer sentence on someone caught stealing from the person next door in a black neighbourhood than on someone caught stealing caught stealing from the person next door in a white neighbourhood. The crime is the same, it is the CRIMINAL who is different, and who is different because of his/her RACE.

It is entirely appropriate to sentence different criminals differently, if the differences are RELEVANT. Race is NOT RELEVANT. And at the level of personal-use possession at least, the difference between crack and cocaine is NOT RELEVANT.

It is the very essence of "liberal" thinking that the law should not adversely discriminate against people based on irrelevant personal characteristics.

I'd be curious how people throwing a fit about this situation feel about affirmative action. I'd bet that a lot of them think it's unacceptable discrimination in favour of minorities. And I'd just love to see 'em try to reconcile that with proposing that African-American offenders serve the full sentences that they received ONLY because of the racial bias in the sentencing guidelines.

being given the benefit of retroactive application of the new guidelines, which remove the racial bias that resulted in the longer sentences they were given?

Did you actually read the opening post?

That's the issue in this discussion. Not whether or how drug users/addicts should be dealt with.

I can't believe that the new guidelines, and the proposal that they be applied retroactively, could be met with anything other than a standing ovation from liberals everywhere.

Well ... except that I've never trusted a liberal as far as I could throw one. Nonetheless: removing racial bias from the judicial system, and mitigating the effects on people who have been victims of it, just really should not be in issue in the mind of any liberal.

you are the one going from zero to 1000. I'm just stating that if crackheads are going to be released then they should be put into a drug rehab.

Chill, drink some wine and listen to some john coltrane.

When you have something to say about the question, I'll be listening.

If crackheads are going to be released, then they should be put into a drug rehab. (Nice sentiment; unfortunately, as has been pointed out here, there's really no such thing as drug rehab in the US, and social/economic integration would likely be a better approach.)

But if there is no drug rehab available, and also if the earth is flat and there are faeries at the bottom of my garden, or not, crackheads should not be held in prison any longer than they would have been held had they been sentenced under the new, NON-RACIST guidelines.

I will assume we agree that the availability or absence of drug rehab programs, or anything else in the world we can imagine, should have no bearing on whether people are sentenced, or continue to be incarcerated under sentences already imposed, on the basis of rules that have/had a severely adverse impact on one group of people because of their race/class.

everyone got one.

have a great weekend!! :)

You will now be blocked lol

That situation (and some others) are troubling when two similar drugs can merit such very different punishments.

Of course, I also think the sentences for drug crimes are out of line with the actual crime.

Damn...must be busting too many white collar workers using the shit.