FAIRNESS IN DRUG SENTENCING

Congress's decision to mandate longer prison terms for people
arrested with crack cocaine than those caught with the powdered form
of the drug was both irrational and discriminatory.

The theory behind the law, that crack -- cocaine cooked in baking
soda -- was more addictive and led to more violent crime was soon
proved false. But by then, the country was locked into a policy under
which the mainly minority drug users arrested with small amounts of
crack were getting harsher sentences than white users caught with far
larger amounts of powder.

The United States Sentencing Commission, which sets sentencing
guidelines for the federal courts, reports that in 2006, 82 percent
of the people convicted under the federal crack statute were black
and only 9 percent were white. Many of the people given those harsh
sentences were also first-time offenders who could have been
rehabilitated through community-based drug treatment programs. In
addition to ruining countless young lives, the policy undermined
trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

Congress has repeatedly ignored calls to equalize sentencing, partly
because Justice Department officials in previous administrations have
argued against it. This week, however, Lanny A. Breuer, the new chief
of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, told lawmakers that it
was time to revisit the crack/cocaine disparity.

Mr. Breuer argued that the sentencing disparity was "difficult to
justify based on the facts and science, including evidence that crack
is not an inherently more addictive substance than powder cocaine."
The law was especially problematic, he continued, "because a growing
number of citizens view it as fundamentally unfair."

Mr. Breuer is right. Instead of perpetuating this discrimination,
Congress should quickly move to equalize the penalties for the
possession of crack and cocaine.