Insight

COCAINE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITHSTAND WIDESPREAD CRITICISM

Different Penalties For Crack, Powder Cocaine Began During Crack Epidemic
Of 1980s

Candace Hardin of North Charleston recently received 18 months in prison
for her role in a miniature crack cocaine factory at her Stratton Drive
home. While that's hardly big news, her case brushed up against an ongoing
national debate over federal sentencing rules for crack cocaine, a highly
addictive derivative of powder cocaine that seemed to explode on the
American drug scene in the 1980s.

Congress, determined to do something to stem the sudden flood of crack
abuse, passed laws in 1986 and 1988 that did two things. First, they
greatly increased the penalties for possession of crack relative to those
for cocaine in its powdered form. Second, they reduced the amount of crack
cocaine necessary to trigger mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking -
a more serious offense.

Over the years, the differences between the guidelines for crack and
powdered cocaine have sparked debate. Critics say the law creates
disparities in the way black and white drug offenders are treated. Judicial
activist groups, such as the non-profit Sentencing Project, have lobbied to
overturn and rewrite the guidelines. And while the law remains on the
books, even some judges are ambivalent.

Candace Hardin's reduced sentence came after she helped prosecutors convict
her husband, Kelon Renordo Hardin, whom her family claimed forced her to
help him manufacture crack. He is facing life in prison due to prior drug
convictions. When it was time for Candace Hardin's trial, her attorney -
Amanda Keaveny - faced some stark differences in the law. If sentenced
under the crack guidelines, Harden was looking at a sentence of nine to 11
years in prison.

Under the powder cocaine guidelines, the sentence would be three years or
less. Keaveny asked U.S. District Judge David Norton to sentence her client
under the powder guidelines, and Candace Hardin pleaded guilty to
possession of powder cocaine - its state before it is crystallized into
crack. Norton denied Keaveny's request to sentence Hardin under the more
lenient guidelines, but in doing so he said that it was his position that
the crack guidelines were distorted, though there was nothing he could do
about that.

In the end, Hardin wound up with a light sentence not because of those
guidelines, but because she cooperated with prosecutors in the case against
her husband, who was convicted on Jan. 15. He will be sentenced in about
three months. Most of those sentenced for crack cocaine don't fare nearly
as well. Nationally, the average sentence in 2000 for crack cocaine
possession was 120 months, compared to an average sentence for powder
cocaine possession of 85 months, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Even more striking are the racial differences. In 2000, federal prosecutors
nationwide convicted 5,012 people for selling crack. Of that number, 5.7
percent were white and 9 percent were Hispanic. Eighty-four percent were
black. Those convicted of powder cocaine offenses were more diverse. In
2000, 5,344 people were convicted for selling powder cocaine. Half that
number were Hispanic, 18.2 percent were white and 30.3 percent were black.

Critics say the problems with the law go beyond racial questions. For
instance, it is possible for a street dealer with a small amount of crack
to receive a longer sentence than the person who manufactures the crack and
takes the biggest profit - if all he's caught with is powder, that is.
William D. McColl, national affairs director at the Lindesmith Center -
Drug Policy Foundation in Washington, D.C., believes the nation's get-tough
attitude on drug offenders has distorted sentencing, making it possible to
get more time in prison for drug possession than for some violent crimes.
And black males, he said, are bearing the brunt of it.

But the nation's drug czar John P. Walters has said the perception that the
criminal justice system's war on drugs is unjustly punishing young black
men is one of "the great urban myths of our time." But while some challenge
the sentencing standards, others argue that the law has done exactly what
it was meant to do: provide tougher penalties for a particularly
devastating drug that was wreaking havoc on communities across the United
States. They point out that the law is race-neutral and that legal attempts
to overturn the guidelines on constitutional grounds during the mid-1990s
failed.

The debate will continue. Separate bills in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate
are aimed at closing the sentencing gap. The House bill would do away with
a mandatory minimum sentence for crack, creating a sentence for cocaine
regardless of its form. The Senate bill would narrow the gap between the
two guidelines.

Insight is a regular feature in which Post and Courier writers take a look
at the news behind the news. Is there a topic or an issue you'd like for us
to explore? Please send suggestions to Insight, c/o Shirley Greene, The
Post and Courier, 134 Columbus St., Charleston, S.C. 29403.