Tag: crack cocaine penalties

The new sentencing guidelines with reductions in crack cocaine sentences went into effect two days ago.

In two days, the courts have granted 400 motions for sentence reductions. A few inmates have been able to leave jail immediately.

These reductions are modest in size, don't apply to everyone and should be heralded by everyone concerned about justice and fairness. The exceptions, not surprisingly, are the Bush Administration and Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who continue to criticize the reductions.

Sentencing Law and Policy has much more on how the implementation of the reductions is progressing.

I'm looking forward to a Democratic President in November who will provide Congress with an impetus to move on legislation that will eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder once and for all, and also reduce or eliminate the true cancer on the criminal justice system -- mandatory minimum drug sentences.

Tomorrow morning, the ACLU will hold a rally in Washington on the unfairness of mandatory minimum sentences, and specifically, the need to repair the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine sentencing disparity.(Received by e-mail, no link yet.)

Speakers at the rally include:

• Dorothy Gaines, who was charged with conspiracy to deliver crack cocaine due to her then-boyfriend’s alleged participation in a large-scale drug operation as a driver. Ms. Gaines served 6 years of a 19½ year sentence before being granted clemency by President Clinton in 2000.

• Karen Garrison, whose sons are currently serving 15+ years in federal prison for non-violent crack cocaine offenses.

• Kemba Smith, who was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to 24.5 years on charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and related charges after a failed relationship, despite her lack of involvement in any drug dealing operation.

The ACLU's written testimony on the need to reform these draconian, unfair penalties is here.

Several bills to reduce the injustice are pending in Congress. I outlined them here. A hearing is scheduled on them tomorrow before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. [More...]

Bump and Update: The ACLU reports on Mukasey's testimony today. The Washington Post and Sentencing Law and Policy have more.

***

Original Post: 2/6/08

Bad news from Attorney General Michael Mukasey today. In written testimony to be delivered at a House Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow, he will ask Congress to block the release of crack offenders currently serving sentences except for first-time, non-violent offenders. It's unclear whether Congress would act in time.

More....

Adam Liptak in the New York Times has a new column on the recent sentencing guideline reductions for crack cocaine. He posits that as a result of the reductions, Congress may be less likely to reduce mandatory minimum penalties for crack cocaine since Judges now have more discretion in sentencing and Congress won't want to give judges unfettered discretion.

There are several bills kicking around Congress meant to harmonize cocaine sentencing laws. But, perhaps perversely, the Supreme Court’s decisions last Monday may make Congressional action less likely. Letting judges have too much discretion does not sit well with some legislators, and that discretion can be controlled through mandatory minimums.

His source for that theory is former (very conservative) Judge and victims' rights advocate Paul Cassell. I've never agreed with Cassell about anything, particularly his attempts to repeal Miranda rights, push the death penalty and make light of false confessions and wrongful convictions, but I sure hope he's wrong on this one.

Liptak describes the penalties for powder as if they are way too lenient,

Fifty grams of crack equals a guaranteed 10 years. It takes five kilograms of powder to mandate the same sentence. Five kilos is a lot of cocaine.

I think that's a backwards way of looking at it. The better view is that ten years is a long jail sentence -- for any non-violent drug offense, regardless of the quantity.

I'm wondering if Liptak's use of the phrase "a lot of cocaine" is the result of someone whispering in his ear that the only way the crack penalties go down is if the powder penalties go up. That would be a terrible injustice.

The pending reform bills are here. Two call for equalization. The bills could be put on the agenda early next year. It's time to start contacting your Senators and Congresspersons and telling them to equalize the crack and powder cocaine penalties at the current powder levels. Two wrongs don't make a right.

There will be a Democratic debate tomorrow in Iowa, where the January 3 primary essentially is a toss-up between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

In light of the Supreme Court decision this week in Kimbrough v. U.S. (pdf)authorizing federal judges to consider the great disparity in penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses in deciding whether to sentence crack defendants below the federal sentencing guidelines ("...it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence “greater than necessary” to achieve §3553(a)’s purposes") and yesterday's decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to make retroactive the recent and relatively minor crack cocaine sentencing guideline reductions, I'm hoping the candidates will be asked their positions on mandatory minimum sentences and what they will do as President to change them.

I've put together a chronology of how the mandatory sentences came about and what efforts to change or resist changing them have been made since.

In light of yesterday's decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to make the reduction in federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses retroactive, many are wondering just how these reductions will be effected.

The Sentencing Commission has answered this in part by modifying U.S.S.G. 1B1.10. Here's the new version. [Note: changed to user friendly link]

Sen. Edward Kennedy released a statement today praising the Sentencing Commission's retraoctivity decision regarding the minor reductions in crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. He also urges passage of S. 1685 which he co-sponsored with Diane Feinstein, Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch (that ought to tell you right there it's not a good bill.)

The bill insufficiently cuts the disparity between crack and powder. Instead of 5 grams of crack, the threshold for the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence would be 25 grams. For powder, it's currently 500 grams.

Instead of 50 grams of crack, the bill makes the threshold for the 10 year mandatory minimum sentence 250 grams. The threshold for powder is currently 5 kilograms (5,000 grams.)

The bill does eliminate the mandatory minimum for first timers who possess for personal use.

Joe Biden's bill, S. 1711, co-sponsored by John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Carl Levin is better. It equalizes the penalties between crack and powder at the current powder levels. But, the reductions are not retroactive, so they won't help the 19,500 offenders currently serving the disparate sentences.

And, as usual, Biden can't leave well enough alone. He has to go and increase funding for the war on drugs. [More....]

By a unanimous vote, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has made its November, 2007 reduction in crack cocaine penalties retroactive. The effective date is March, 2008. The statement is here.

This is very good news, but note the limitations:

Not every crack cocaine offender will be eligible for a lower sentence under the decision. A Federal sentencing judge will make the final determination of whether an offender is eligible for a lower sentence and how much that sentence should be lowered. That determination will be made only after consideration of many factors, including the Commission’s direction to consider whether lowering the offender’s sentence would pose a danger to public safety. In addition, the overall impact is anticipated to occur incrementally over approximately 30 years, due to the limited nature of the guideline amendment and the fact that many crack cocaine offenders will still be required under Federal law to serve mandatory five- or ten-year sentences because of the amount of crack involved in their offense.

More...

Update: The Commission has unanimously voted for retroactivity. Press Release is here. Reaction and newer post here.

****

[Note: This is a long post, covering the issues of the guidelines, mandatory minimums, the informant system of sentence reduction and the need for Congress to act to change the law.]

The U.S. Sentencing Commission will vote today on whether to make the recently enacted small (two level) guideline reduction for crack cocaine offenses retroactive so that some of the 19,500 inmates currently serving federal crack sentences can benefit from it. It is widely expected they will vote for retroactivity and I'll update and bump this post when they do.

The thing to remember is, this doesn't solve the problem. The much bigger problem is with mandatory minimum sentences. Only Congress can change those. Neither yesterday's Supreme Court decisions nor the guideline reduction addresses this problem. Today, like yesterday, judges are powerless to go below the 5 or 10 (or in some cases 20) year mandatory minimum sentence unless the defendant cooperates with the Government and the Government asks the judge to impose a lower sentence. The judge can't do it on his own -- or at the request of a defendant. That's just wrong-headed.

More...

The Supreme Court today affirmed rulings of two district court judges in cases in which they had granted downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. One case involved crack, the other ecstasy.

The cases are Kimbrough v. U.S., 06-6330 (opinion here, pdf) and Gall v. U.S., 06-7949, opinion here (pdf).

In Kimbrough, the Court had imposed a 15 year sentence instead of the 19 to 22 years called for by the guidelines. In Gall, the Court granted probation instead of a 30 to 37 month sentence.

Scotus Blog explains the decisons. Law Prof Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy is very excited and will have a lot of commentary as soon as he's digested the opinions.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Sentencing Commission will announce its decision on whether its recent crack cocaine guideline reduction will be retroactive and thus apply to the 19,500 crack offenders now in federal prison.

Update: Two quotes from Kimbraugh on the difference between mandatory minimums and guidelines and ability of judges to consider the disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties:

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton in Iowa yesterday said she has problems with making the reduction in crack-powder cocaine penalties, minimal as they are, retroactive.

“In principle I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "It’s something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well."

Five other Dems at the forum favor retroactivity:

Her five rivals present on stage — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich — all said they favor making the shorter sentences retroactive.

Hillary needs to rethink this. As Law Prof Doug Berman says at Sentencing Law and Policy, her position is a huge disappointment. But I'm not convinced Obama's position will result in any future change of the excessive mandatory minimum sentences (as opposed to the minimal guideline reduction) for crack offenses. [More...]

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is holding a hearing today on whether to make the November 1 sentencing guideline reductions for crack cocaine retroactive. (Background here.)

You can read all of the letters submitted to the Commission for today's hearing here. I think the Commission will decide in favor of retroactivity. If so, it will be a huge policy decision.

Such a mass commutation would be unprecedented: No other single rule in the two-decade history of the Sentencing Commission has affected nearly as many inmates. And no single law or act of presidential clemency, such as grants of amnesty to draft resisters and conscientious objectors after World War II and the Vietnam War, has affected so many people at one time.

Retroactivity will be of some help to many of the 19,500 federal inmates currently serving time for crack offenses. The principal opposition is coming from prosecutors and the Justice Department, hardly a surprise.

More...

(larger version here.)

Via Sentencing Law and Policy, the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference ( a body of federal judges established by Congress with the purpose of enacting policy for our federal courts) is urging the Sentencing Commission to make the recent reductions in crack cocaine sentencing guidelines retroactive. The letter is available here (pdf.)

There are 19,500 inmates serving time for crack cocaine in federal prisons. Some other good links:

• Sentencing Project and its letter (pdf)to the Commission urging retroactivity. It's crack reform sentencing page is here.

• Families Against Mandatory Minimums

[Cross-posted earlier today at Firedoglake.com]

Finally, a little relief is at hand for the vastly disparate and draconian crack cocaine sentences meted out by federal courts. New federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses went into effect today.

Starting today, many offenders sentenced in federal court for crack will receive a sentence about 16 months less than they would have yesterday.

By way of background, through mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the Feds have punished crack crimes far more severely than those involving powder cocaine. The U.S. Sentencing Commission followed suit by enacting guidelines that matched the mandatory minimums.

A crime involving five grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory sentence of five years in prison, and 50 grams carries a 10-year penalty. However, it takes 500 and 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine to trigger the same five and 10 year sentences.

More....

On November 1, the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine will drop two levels. Not enough to make up for the outrageous disparity between crack and powder guidelines, but a good start.

The remaining question is whether the guideline change will be retroactive and apply to the 19,500 previously sentenced defendants.

The Commission will hold a public hearing on November 13 (pdf.) Sentencing Law and Policy has the details.