RECENT CRACK COCAINE RULING BRINGS EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT

Christmas may have come early this year for the families of thousands
of federal inmates with crack cocaine convictions, thanks to recent
actions by the U.S. Supreme Court, President George W. Bush and the
U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Back in the 1980s at the height of the crack epidemic in urban
America, our nation's leaders labored under the misconception that
the less expensive form of cocaine was much more addictive than its
powder form, based on the testimony of an "expert" government
witness. Distorted visions of crack babies overtaking inner cities
danced in their heads, much to the detriment of fair and reasonable
public policy.

As a result, Congress mandated harsher sentences for possession and
distribution of crack. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, those
convicted of possessing 50 grams of the crack form of cocaine faced
the same time behind bars as those convicted of possessing and/or
selling 100 times as much of the power form. The result? Prisons
swelled with petty criminals, a disproportionate number - as much as
85 percent - black, not the drug kingpins of the world.

"For two decades, the United States has pursued, prosecuted and
sentenced cocaine offenders in a way that borders on insanity -
targeting petty criminals over serious drug dealers - while fostering
contempt, instead of respect, for the policies that have sent tens of
thousands to jail," writes Ellis Cose in a recent Newsweek online column.

In an early December 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided to give
federal judges leeway in sentencing for crack convictions. The case
in question involved a Desert Storm veteran named Derrick Kimbrough
who was caught with crack, powder cocaine and a gun, offenses that
should have sent him to prison for two decades or more.

Had he possessed only powder cocaine he would have faced half the
sentence, concluded Judge Raymond Jackson, who presided over the
trial, in giving Kimbrough a lesser-than-mandated 15-year sentence.
An appeals court overruled Jackson's decision only to be reversed by
the nation's highest court.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who authored the decision with John Paul
Stevens, concluded that if powder and crack cocaine, the product of
powder cocaine and baking soda crystallized, possess "the same
physiological and psychotropic effects" then their users should be
treated the same. The ruling deemed the 1986 law that created the
disparate sentencing guidelines as "disproportionate and unjust."

Then, in a rare show of mercy a few hours after the decision,
President George W. Bush cut the sentence of Michael D. Short, who
had been convicted of aiding a crack-cocaine ring, one year short. It
was one of only five commutations granted during his presidency. And
a day later, the U.S. Sentencing Commission announced that up to
20,000 federal inmates with crack convictions could be eligible for
sentence reductions.

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union drug
reform project, described the recent court decision to Newsweek as
the first since the mid-1980s "that actually talks about justice,
that seems to have some blood in it."

The recent developments provide a welcomed relief for the families
left behind as well as the incarcerated. Karen Garrison, a
Washington, D.C., mother of twin sons who were jailed in 1998 on
crack offenses, is just one of many beneficiaries of the recent
sentencing decision and subsequent developments. She told the
Associated Press that she can now "just plan some kind of life" with
her sons possibly on their way home.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Justice Department has sounded unwarranted
alarms over the sentencing commission's decision, contending that it
would result in unleashing thousands of "dangerous prisoners, many of
them violent gang members" back into communities ill-equipped to
handle them, according to a statement by acting Deputy Attorney
General Craig S. Morford.

The department probably wouldn't be as worried over the prospect of a
"mass" inmate release if Uncle Sam made prisoner re-entry programs a
priority in the first place.

Overall, the latest developments toward eliminating sentencing
disparities are likely to have a limited impact because the vast
majority of drug convictions come out of state courts. According to
the U.S. Bureau of Justice, they outnumbered those in federal courts
by a ratio of 15-to-1 in 2004.

Nevertheless, the recent course of events is important. What happens
on the federal level could change the course of history at the state
level. But first Congress must act to ensure that the disparities in
sentencing are eliminated for good. The recent events, by no means,
guarantee an end to harsh punishments for crack defendants. Our
nation's lawmakers must give the justice system and its enforcers
direct and clear guidance just like they did in the 1980s when they
decided to hold small-time crack dealers to a more stringent standard
than their drug kingpin counterparts.