EQUALIZE DRUG SENTENCES, BUT DON'T STOP AT THAT

IF YOU REALLY want to talk about nonsensical disparities in the way South
Carolina treats different types of crime, don't compare criminal domestic
violence to cockfighting. Compare it to drug addiction.

In South Carolina, first-offense simple possession of crack cocaine is a
felony that can land you in prison for five years. First-offense simple
criminal domestic violence is a misdemeanor that can put you behind bars for
no more than 30 days.

Earlier this month, the Senate voted to eliminate one disparity involving
drug sentences - the one that treats the form of cocaine generally used by
black people as a far greater threat than the form of cocaine generally used
by white people. Under current law, while crack possession is a five-year
felony, first-offense powder cocaine possession is a misdemeanor that
carries up to two years in prison. The Senate bill would make first-offense
possession of either form of cocaine a misdemeanor, with a sentence of up to
three years in prison; a second offense would be a felony with a sentence of
up to seven years in prison.

That doesn't make as much sense as what the Senate tried to do a couple of
years ago, which was to lower crack sentences to the level of powder cocaine
sentences. But at the time, the House would have nothing to do with the
change, which was attached to a House bill to increase the portion of their
sentences that most prisoners must serve before being eligible for release.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison said then that eliminating the
disparity would be fine - as long as that meant increasing sentences for
cocaine users, not decreasing them for crack users. No compromise was
reached, and the overall bill died, as it should have.

This time around, senators decided to try the compromise of lowering the
crack sentences a little while increasing the powder cocaine sentences a
little. Since more than twice as many people are serving prison sentences
for crack possession as for powder cocaine possession, and since their
sentences are 20 percent longer, this change should result, over time, in
fewer people being warehoused in our prisons. There's a downside, though.
Since there's a minimum sentence for distribution of powder cocaine and not
of crack, equalizing sentences meant adding minimums on the more serious
crack charges, which could increase some prison sentences; that's nothing to
celebrate.

Still, equalizing the sentences makes an important statement about our
values. There is no scientific or moral justification for treating two forms
of the same chemical substance so differently. While it's not clear that
racism was the motive behind creating the disparity, it's clear that the
effect has been to punish black addicts much more harshly than white
addicts.

That, of course, brings us to the bigger question: Why do we spend so much
money imprisoning drug addicts, instead of treating them?

Mandatory drug treatment programs have proved to be far more effective at
getting people to give up drugs - and to become law-abiding citizens - than
prison sentences. And they're cheaper, too, which certainly should be a
consideration in a state that refuses to spend the money needed to hire
enough guards for our ever-increasing prison population.

Maybe if we spent a little less money putting addicts behind bars, we'd be
able to afford to treat batterers a little more seriously. Or - imagine this
- - we might even be able to afford to invest in education and counseling
programs that would make it less likely that people would become criminals
of any type.