News (Media Awareness Project) - US NY: Editorial: 100-to-1 Rule |
| Title: | US NY: Editorial: 100-to-1 Rule |
| Published On: | 2007-11-15 |
| Source: | New York Times (NY) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-01-11 18:42:27 |
100-TO-1 RULE
Congress did a serious injustice when it imposed much tougher
penalties on defendants convicted of selling the crack form of
cocaine -- the kind most often used in impoverished, minority
communities -- than on those caught selling the powdered form of the
drug that is popular with more upscale users.
In what's known as the 100-to-1 rule, federal law mandates a 10-year
sentence for anyone caught with 50 grams of crack, about the weight
of a candy bar. To get a comparable sentence, a dealer selling
powdered cocaine would have to be caught with 5,000 grams, enough to
fill a briefcase.
The federal crack statute was passed during the height of the
so-called crack epidemic of the 1980s, when it was widely, but
mistakenly, believed that the crack form of the drug was more
dangerous than the chemically identical powdered form. Congress
compounded the inequity by making crack cocaine the only drug that
carries a mandatory minimum sentence for possession, even for
first-time offenders. Laws that were supposed to focus federal
efforts on locking up drug kingpins have swamped federal courts with
small-time cases, many involving couriers and street-corner sellers.
The United States Sentencing Commission, the bipartisan body that
sets guidelines for federal prison sentences, urged Congress to
eliminate the sentencing disparity more than a decade ago. The
commission recently established new guidelines that would provide
more lenient sentencing for crack offenses.
Only Congress can fix this problem, and fortunately lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle are finally recognizing that the crack laws are
both grossly unfair and counterproductive. Senator Joseph Biden,
Democrat of Delaware, is sponsoring a comprehensive bill that would
wipe out the 100-to-1 disparity, do away with the mandatory minimum
sentence for first-time offenders and open up new treatment programs.
It would restore fairness to the sentencing process. It would also
take the federal focus off small-time users and place it on the drug
kingpins, which is where it belongs.
Congress did a serious injustice when it imposed much tougher
penalties on defendants convicted of selling the crack form of
cocaine -- the kind most often used in impoverished, minority
communities -- than on those caught selling the powdered form of the
drug that is popular with more upscale users.
In what's known as the 100-to-1 rule, federal law mandates a 10-year
sentence for anyone caught with 50 grams of crack, about the weight
of a candy bar. To get a comparable sentence, a dealer selling
powdered cocaine would have to be caught with 5,000 grams, enough to
fill a briefcase.
The federal crack statute was passed during the height of the
so-called crack epidemic of the 1980s, when it was widely, but
mistakenly, believed that the crack form of the drug was more
dangerous than the chemically identical powdered form. Congress
compounded the inequity by making crack cocaine the only drug that
carries a mandatory minimum sentence for possession, even for
first-time offenders. Laws that were supposed to focus federal
efforts on locking up drug kingpins have swamped federal courts with
small-time cases, many involving couriers and street-corner sellers.
The United States Sentencing Commission, the bipartisan body that
sets guidelines for federal prison sentences, urged Congress to
eliminate the sentencing disparity more than a decade ago. The
commission recently established new guidelines that would provide
more lenient sentencing for crack offenses.
Only Congress can fix this problem, and fortunately lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle are finally recognizing that the crack laws are
both grossly unfair and counterproductive. Senator Joseph Biden,
Democrat of Delaware, is sponsoring a comprehensive bill that would
wipe out the 100-to-1 disparity, do away with the mandatory minimum
sentence for first-time offenders and open up new treatment programs.
It would restore fairness to the sentencing process. It would also
take the federal focus off small-time users and place it on the drug
kingpins, which is where it belongs.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
