BRINGING FAIRNESS TO DRUG SENTENCING

Congress spawned a national trend toward discriminatory sentencing
when it drew a false distinction between powdered cocaine and crack
cocaine for law enforcement purposes during the 1980's. Crack is
simply powdered cocaine cooked in baking soda. The theory at the time
- - that it was more addictive and generated more violence than powder -
was later proved false. By then, however, Congress had made crack the
only drug that mandates a sentence for a first offense and fixed high
sentences for people caught with relatively small quantities.

This mistake has resulted in a racially biased sentencing policy,
since crack users are mainly black and Latino, while powdered cocaine
tends to be a drug of choice for affluent whites. This system was
emulated by the states, and its blatant unfairness undermines respect
for the judicial system in communities of color.

The United States Sentencing Commission has repeatedly urged Congress
to deal with this shameful problem by reducing the sentencing for
possession of crack to bring the two more in line. But Congress has
rejected this idea, for fear of being seen as "soft on drugs." State
legislatures have generally been paralyzed by this same fear.

Nevertheless, the argument for fairness is finally being aired in
several states, including California, South Carolina and Connecticut.
Both houses of the Connecticut Legislature have passed a bill that
would bring crack and powdered cocaine sentences into line. Gov. Jodi
Rell is equivocating on whether she will sign. She has the chance to
demonstrate to the people of the state that she has the strength of
character to do something that has no discernible political advantage,
simply because it's the right thing. It is an opportunity she
shouldn't refuse.