CRACK SENTENCING NEEDS ANOTHER FIX

Retroactively Shortening Sentences Would Make The System More Equitable.

Congress probably didn't set out to pass racially discriminatory laws
20 years ago when it first began clamping down on crack cocaine. The
intention was to stem a drug epidemic that was rapidly tearing
inner-city neighborhoodsapart -- driving gang warfare, splitting
families and, it was feared, creating a generation of "crack babies"
too hopelessly damaged to ever become productive members of society.
The result was federal sentencing guidelines that imposed much
harsher terms on dealers in crack than in powder cocaine.

Regardless of the intention, those guidelines proved not only
discriminatory but ineffective -- as well as unjustified by
scientific research. More than 80% of those serving time in federal
prison on crack charges are African American. This has justifiably
fueled distrust and disrespect for the law in black communities. Why
should a black crack addict get more time than a white cocaine
addict? Especially when research has shown that the two drugs are
pharmacologically identical? Moreover, 20 years of harsh crack
sentences have done nothing to stem the drug trade.

As of Nov. 1, the sentencing disparity has been eased, and Congress
did the right thing by allowing the changes to take effect. Today,
the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a panel created by Congress in 1984
to ensure fair terms for those convicted on federal charges, will
discuss whether to make the reduction in sentences retroactive -- a
move that would shave an average of at least two years off the terms
of nearly 20,000 inmates.

The Justice Department argues that returning all those convicts to
the streets represents a potential danger to the community. Perhaps,
but then the release of any inmate represents a potential danger;
anyone eligible for release has already served ample time for his or
her crime. Because the Sentencing Commission has already ruled that
the crack guidelines were unfair, it would be inconsistent to keep
inmates in prison simply because they were sentenced before the rules
were changed. What is unfair now was unfair then.

It's abundantly clear that the get-tough-on-crime approach didn't
work with crack cocaine -- the epidemic is alive and well and still
takes a daily toll in Los Angeles. The sentencing changes should
signal the start of a new approach, one that focuses on
community-based treatment, job training and other forms of
rehabilitation for addicts.