SENTENCING GUIDELINES FACE NEW SCRUTINY

New Congress to Examine Minimum Mandates; Crack Requirements Will Get
First Test

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."