FIVE YEARS FOR FIVE GRAMS

What should Connecticut lawmakers do about unjust, racially biased and
overly expensive mandatory minimum statutes?

Should a convicted murderer expect to spend more time in jail than someone
caught with two ounces of crack cocaine? Common sense may dictate yes, but
the reality of mandatory sentencing would prove you wrong.

Faced with this absurdity, Connecticut legislators listening to Jonathan
Caulkins, Ph.D., expound on the costliness of mandatory minimum sentences
for cocaine offenses waited all night recently for the answerthat never
came: What should Connecticut lawmakers do about unjust racially biased and
overly expensive mandatory minimum statutes?

"I don't know," Caulkins said Dec. 8 during the Q&A period following his
presentation, part of a Yale University seminar series on policies on
illicit drugs. Caulkins, in a study in conjunction with the Rand
Corporation and the University of Pittsburgh, determined that mandatory
minimum sentencing is not only ineffective in curbing the flow of drugs but
more costly to taxpayers than alternative methods of sentencing.

Federal mandatory minimums target possession. Sentencing guidelines for
crack cocaine dictate that five grams earns five years in jail, 50 grams
gets 10 years, and anywhere from 500 to 5,000 grams merits 20 years.
Powdered cocaine reaps a mandatory sentence of five years for 500 grams,
and 10 years for 5,000 grams. The average minimum homicide sentence is 64
months, slightly longer than the base punishment for five grams of crack.

In Connecticut, mandatory minimums kick in when drug offenses occur within
certain geographical areas, such as school and hospital zones.

"Do I want them repealed? Yes," Caulkins said. "I think sentences should be
shorter. Legalization is a stupid idea for cocaine and heroin. But so are
10-year sentences for possession. I think the answer is somewhere in between."

Caulkins' study, based on data collected over a 15-year period, compares
the effectiveness of normal law enforcement action, mandatory minimums and
drug treatment in reducing the use in kilos of cocaine per million dollars
expended. The results showed drug treatment is eight times more effective
than mandatory minimums at stopping usage and six times more effective than
normal law enforcement in stopping usage. What kinds of treatment worked
and what types of law enforcement activities were considered "normal," he
didn't say.

While the analysis focused on the cost-effectiveness of mandatory minimums
rather than the inherent racial biases and injustices in the laws, Caulkins
detailed how crack-- sold and used predominantly by minorities in
cities--warrants longer incarcerations than powder, which is pushed by
higher-tier wholesalers more likely to be non-minority. And, by removing
sentencing discretion from judges, mandatory minimums result in first-time,
non-violent offenders getting exceedingly harsh sentences.

Caulkins noted that while mandatory minimums seem to stop cocaine usage for
the first two years, the overall cost increases as taxpayers have to pay
for more and more prison space. Meanwhile, rather than curb the market for
drugs, new dealers simply step in to fill the demand as others are
arrested. Caulkins said mandatory minimums only work when the federal
government targets high-level dealers and spends more than $20,000 on the
investigations.

Federal Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey has seen an abstract of the study
and agrees with its conclusions, according to Caulkins, and the Clinton
administration has tried to reduce the disparity between sentences for
powdered cocaine versus those for crack cocaine. But federal change is
unlikely, which is why Caulkins was in New Haven last week. "Still the
fundamental problem is that the vast majority of people in treatment
relapse," Caulkins said. "We should use enforcement to reduce violence and
disorder associated with drug use while treatment chips away at the problem
over time."

At the same time, talks on policy must eliminate morality and extremism by
both prohibitionists and legalization proponents. "Polarizing debate is
unconstructive if the idea is pragmatic reform," Caulkins said.

But if the 40 or so participants, including state representatives and
senators who have taken active roles in changing Connecticut's drug policy
from a criminal justice stance to a public health issue, were looking for
something more concrete to take into the next legislative session, they
didn't find it here.

Frustrated by the theoretical nature of the presentation, State Rep. Peter
Metz (D-Branford) left saying, "If I can't measure on quantity, give me
something I can measure on. There were so many assumptions without
considering the practical effects. There's a mixture of techniques applied
in the proper way that we're still looking for."

Checked-by: Richard Lake