CRACK THE DISPARITY

In 1986, Washington passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and a judicial
outrage was born. The measure set a federal mandatory minimum
sentence of five years for dealing 5 grams of crack cocaine - but
meted out the same sentence for 500 grams of powder cocaine. Why the
100-to-1 sentencing disparity? Congress believed that crack was a
more powerful drug with more violence associated with it.

But as civil rights groups noted, the big difference seems to be that
crack offenders have been disproportionately black. According to the
U.S. Sentencing Commission, more than 4 out of 5 of those prosecuted
on federal crack charges in 2006 were African American, while 9
percent were white. At the same time, powder cocaine offenders were
27 percent African American, 14 percent white - and 58 percent Hispanic.

In 1995, the Sentencing Commission found that there was no evidence
for the disparate treatment of the crimes; 14 years later, Washington
has failed to correct or reduce this discriminatory practice. In
recent years, Congress toyed with reducing the sentencing disparity
to 20-to-1 but could not manage even that inadequate adjustment.

President Obama seems poised to end this institutional inequity. Last
week, Lanny Breuer, the chief of the Department of Justice Criminal
Division, spoke to a Senate judiciary subcommittee in favor of
lowering the crack sentence so that it is equal to sentences for
powder cocaine. Breuer argued that the effects of crack and powder
cocaine are similar. While there does seem to be more violence
associated with the crack trade, Breuer added, "the best way to
address drug-related violence is to ensure the most severe sentences
are meted out to those who commit violence offenses." Correct.

Who will stand in the way? Some drug warriors have said they would
support equal sentences only if powder sentences match draconian
crack sentences. And there is concern over the possibility that new
sentences will clog up the courts with appeals for retroactive resentencing.

The Washington Post reported that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
favored adjusting the ratio but not necessarily equalizing it.
Spokesman Gil Duran told us, "Sen. Feinstein leans heavily toward the
1-to-1 ratio. She's studying the issue carefully, and there is not
yet a bill before the Senate." She should support a bill that
promotes fairness in the future, adjusts draconian crack sentences
and doesn't condemn low-level offenders to overly hard time. Two
words she might want to keep in mind: equal justice.