REVERSE UNFAIR CRACK SENTENCES

A federal commission should make changes to crack-sentencing laws
retroactive, freeing many who were jailed in the 1980s.

Disproportionately harsh federal prison sentences for crack cocaine
offenders is an injustice that has been smoldering for two decades.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, a presidentially appointed body that
sets federal court policies and practices, recently changed those
crack penalties so they are in keeping with punishments for other drugs.

But the commission still is contemplating whether to make those
changes retroactive so that 19,500 prisoners serving unfairly long
sentences can petition to be released. Of them, 115 were sentenced in Colorado.

The commission took one step in the right direction and we think it
ought to take another and give those prisoners a chance at justice.

If the commission makes the change retroactive, it wouldn't be the
first time. It has done so with changes to sentencing laws involving
LSD, marijuana cultivation and OxyContin, a prescription painkiller.

This circumstance is different because whether intentionally or not,
harsh crack sentences have had an unfair effect on black communities.

Many crack offenders are poor black people, in part because of the
drug's cheap price. Harsh crack penalties are often among the reasons
cited for the escalating number of black people incarcerated in this country.

An illustration of how disproportionate punishments for crack crimes
had been can be found in comparing punishments for powder cocaine.
Though the drugs have the same chemical properties, possession and
dealing charges for powder aren't nearly as severe. Before the recent
changes, a first-timer selling just 5 grams of crack, which equals 10
to 50 doses, had gotten the same five-year mandatory sentence as
dealers pushing 500 grams of powdered cocaine, which is 2,500 to 5,000 doses.

Crack sentences were passed during a panicky stretch in the 1980s
when it was a scary new drug. The laws may not have been intended to
discriminate, but they did and it's time to right that wrong.

The Bush administration opposes retroactivity, saying communities
would suffer from the release of large numbers of drug offenders. And
Congress could overturn any such proposal from the commission.

But we like the reasoning of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who
last week testified before the commission on behalf of the federal
judiciary. You may recall that Walton is the Bush appointee who gave
Scooter Libby a 30-month prison term for obstructing justice in a
probe over the leak of a CIA agent's identity. Walton could hardly be
described as soft on crime. (The president ultimately commuted the
sentence). Walton said in contemplating retroactivity, he struggled
with concerns about public safety and extra work for the federal
court system. But in the end, those worries were outweighed by the
fundamental unfairness of the situation. He's right.

A Sentencing Commission analysis says retroactivity could reduce
prison sentences of 19,500 inmates by an average of 27 months. Many
have been in prison so long they are older than 40, which reduces the
probability they'd return to crime.

Releases wouldn't happen automatically. Prisoners would petition the
courts and prosecutors would have a good chance of denying release
for serious, violent offenders.

It's only fair that the small-time users and dealers who got caught
up in draconian sentences should have the chance to have their
sentences reduced to a term that fits the crime.