PRESERVING SAFETY AND FAIRNESS IN WAR ON DRUGS

Last year, after more than two decades of debate, Congress finally
addressed a gross disparity in sentencing for crimes involving
different types of cocaine, crack and powder.

Now, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has adopted federal sentencing
guideline revisions that would allow thousands of convicted drug
offenders to petition for reduced prison terms.

It's not a universally popular move, but it's a revision that makes sense.

The federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine were
well-intentioned but turned out to be an overreaction to drug-related
violence in the mid-1980s. Lawmakers, concluding that crack was far
more dangerous than the powered form of the drug, made mandatory
minimum sentences for crack 100 times higher than those for powder.

For example, a person caught with 50 grams of crack was sentenced to
10 years upon conviction. An individual would have to be convicted of
possessing 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence.

Many lawmakers and criminal justice experts, including federal
judges, considered the disparity unfair. It was also documented to
result in racial disparities: The majority of crack users were black,
while more powder cocaine users were white, so racial minorities were
by law getting much harsher punishment for drug crimes that were
similar except for the form of the illegal substance.

Various groups campaigned for years to get the laws changed. And some
federal officials over the years, including President Bill Clinton's
Attorney General Janet Reno and drug czar Barry McCaffrey, favored
reducing the ratio. But Congress resisted, insisting that the
mandatory sentencing was a great weapon in the "war on drugs."

With a push by the Obama administration, Congress in 2010 passed the
Fair Sentencing Act, which takes effect Nov. 1. Lawmakers reduced the
punishment ratio between crack and powder from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.

Some advocates still consider that disparity too large and would
prefer it to be 1-to-1. And they weren't happy that the law applied
only to convictions going forward rather than affecting the thousands
of users, 80 percent of them black, who were imprisoned under the old
sentencing guidelines.

The Sentencing Commission voted unanimously June 30 to let some
inmates ask federal judges for sentence reductions.

"In passing the Fair Sentencing Act, Congress recognized the
fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine sentencing policy and
ameliorated it through bipartisan legislation," said Judge Patti
Saris, commission chairwoman. She said offenders who meet criteria
set by the commission could have their sentences reduced "to a level
consistent with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010."

The commission says about 12,000 prisoners would be eligible to apply
to have their sentences cut, and the average reduction is expected to
be 37 months. Most eligible offenders aren't likely to be released
from prison immediately: The commission said in a news release that
even after reductions, the average sentence for those prisoners
affected will be about 10 years.

That should allay concerns raised by House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, who opposed the idea of
retroactivity, saying releasing prisoners earlier "merely gets
criminals back into action faster."

Under the commission's changes, inmates must petition a federal judge
for a revised sentence and must demonstrate they are no longer a risk
to public safety. That could be a difficult task for many. Those who
can't meet the test would have to serve their full sentence; they
would still be eligible for release after doing so.

The Bureau of Prisons says applying the changes in crack sentencing
to current prisoners could save more than $200 million within the
first five years.

Public safety is a legitimate and serious issue that can't be
dismissed. But so is fairness in the criminal justice system.

It appears that the new sentencing law and the retroactivity
provision have been carefully crafted so that safety isn't sacrificed
for fairness.