Search Counselor
Login
Current Issue
| From the Editor - October 2010 |
|
|
| From the Editor - From the Editor | ||||||||||
| Written by Ann Gossy | ||||||||||
| Thursday, 23 September 2010 00:00 | ||||||||||
|
Dear Readers, Civil rights activists are celebrating the enactment of a new law that reduces the disparity in penalties for the use of crack and powder cocaine. Signed into law Aug. 3 by President Obama, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 repeals a law that imposed mandatory five-year prison sentences for first-time offenders who possessed five grams of crack cocaine—the same mandatory sentence as 500 grams of powder cocaine—and establishes a new minimum of 28 grams of crack cocaine for conviction. Additionally, the five-year mandatory minimum for simple crack possession is eliminated, and individual circumstances surrounding a drug crime are taken into account, while penalties for major cocaine traffickers are increased. The new law also addresses concerns about violence associated with crack use by recommending a guideline increase for drug crimes involving violence. For nearly 25 years, courts have been required to impose more severe sentences for crack cocaine crimes than powder cocaine offenses. The disparity in the previous law was largely based on the understanding that crack cocaine was more dangerous than powder cocaine because it was instantly addictive and provoked violent behavior. Since then, research and scientific findings have determined that these claims were greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, an analysis by the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation found that only 7 percent of federal cocaine cases have been directed at high-level cocaine traffickers. Instead, federal officials have expended most of the nation’s resources on prosecuting low-level cocaine offenders, many of whom had no previous criminal history. The new law received bipartisan support, with 18 Democrats and five Republicans sponsoring the bill as it was navigated through Congress to the President’s desk for signature. The general consensus among lawmakers is that the 100-to-1 ratio in the previous law was unfair, and that the mandatory crack sentences created an undue burden on the federal prisons, with the number of drug offenders in federal prisons increasing from less than 5,000 in 1980 to nearly 100,000 in 2009. The new 18 to 1 ratio will reduce crack sentences by nearly 30 months and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, save the federal government $42 million dollars over a five-year period. There are some who believe that the new law should go even further and make the new 18-to-1 ratio retroactive, since the sentences have been unjust all along; and some are even calling for an elimination of the disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine. While many key Republicans backed this new law, it was not without its detractors. The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-Texas), warned that reducing penalties for crack cocaine could result in increased violence and addiction, stating that “crack cocaine is associated with a greater degree of violence than most drugs.” In the end, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 represents the type of bipartisan collaboration that should be a standard in our nation’s Congress. Unfortunately, this usually is not the case, with many important pieces of legislation getting lost in pointless partisan posturing, or buried amidst pages of pet projects that amount to nothing short of bribery to gain support for a bill. Ending on a positive note, I am happy to report that this time the true message was not lost, and rationality and justice prevailed over partisan politics. At Counselor Magazine, we are always interestedin hearing from our readers. Send me an email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to share your thoughts.
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26
3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."
|






