A SENTENCE OF FAIRNESS

Judges should be able to judge, and equivalent crimes should result in
equivalent penalties. For two decades, confusion about crack cocaine
has made those seemingly obvious propositions controversial. Finally,
some judicial balance is being restored.

Reacting to the rise of crack cocaine, Congress in 1986 dictated that
crack be treated as 100 times worse than the chemically identical
powder form of the drug. A person possessing 50 grams of crack would
face at least 10 years in prison. It would take 5,000 grams of powder
cocaine to get the same sentence. Reinforcing that approach, appeals
courts routinely overturned sentencing by trial court judges who gave
crack defendants less than the minimum term recommended under
guidelines set by the United States Sentencing Commission.

That commission and the U.S. Supreme Court at last are changing a
system that gave unfairly long sentences to African-American
offenders, who are more likely to use crack, while going easy on white
offenders, who are more likely to use powder. The sentencing
commission first reduced the recommended sentences for crack
offenders. Then this week, the commission applied the guidelines
retroactively. Congress could have blocked the changes but didn't.

Also this week, the Supreme Court ruled that appeals courts no longer
can assume that below-guidelines sentences by trial judges are
unreasonable. The sentencing commission acted unanimously. The Supreme
Court ruled 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voting
- - incredibly - to continue the unfair policy.

Balance isn't fully restored. Though average crack sentences will be
reduced, they still will be longer than sentences for powdered
cocaine. Congress, which has the power to make the sentences
equivalent, still has to finish the job.