Psyche, Science, and Society

Supreme Court allows sentencing leniency

December 10th, 2007

As the U.S. has filled its prisons with millions of, mostly young minority males, many on often minor drug charges. While the War on Drugs has been a total failure at addressing the extent of substance abuse in our society, it has been ripe with abuses. The symbol of this abuse in recent years has been the extreme sentencing discrepancy between those arrested for selling crack, as opposed to powered cocaine. Those of us in substance abuse treatment know that there is essentially no difference between crack and cocaine, except for the common differences in who sells and uses them: crack — poor blacks; cocaine — middle class to wealthy whites. As all attempts to reform theses sentencing disparities have failed, federal judges have taken to using modest discretion in interpreting sentencing guidelines. The Bush administration, terrified by the humanity exemplified by the judges actions, tried to get the Supreme Court to put a stop to judicial discretion. Today, in a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS said “NO” to the Bush administration. Adam B at Daily Kos explains:

SCOTUS: Let judges be merciful

Derrick Kimbrough is, no doubt, a bad man. In 2004 he pleaded guilty to four offenses: conspiracy to distribute crack and powder; possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack (he acknowledged 56 grams); possession with intent to distribute powder (92.1 grams); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. His plea subjected him to a minimum term of 15 years and a maximum of life, with the guidelines reccomending 19-22.5 years. The trial judge thought that such treatment exemplified the “disproportionate and unjust effect that crack cocaine guidelines have in sentencing,” noted that if Kimbrough had possessed only powder cocaine, his Guidelines range would have been far lower: 8-9 years. So the judge did the best he could, and sentenced him to the minimum of 15 years.

The Bush Administration didn’t like this and appealed, claiming that the judge should have had no discretion to consider the crack/powder disparity in sentencing him.

In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Ginsburg handed down this morning, the Supreme Court rebuked the Bush Administration and has given judges permission to deviate downwards from the draconian federal guidelines to consider the disparity in treatment between crack and powder cocaine.

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a drug trafficker dealing in crack cocaine is subject to the same sentence as one dealing in 100 times more powder cocaine. These were guidelines drawn up in 1986 at the dawn of the crack epidemic, but they yield bizarre, unjust results. As the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission had explained to Congress, “Although chemically similar, crack and powder cocaine are handled very differently for sentencing purposes. The 100-to-1 ratio yields sentences for crack offenses three to six times longer than those for powder offenses involving equal amounts of drugs.” More:

“[T]he Commission concluded that the crack/powder disparity is inconsistent with the 1986 Act’s goal of punishing major drug traffickers more severely than low-level dealers. Drug importers and major traffickers generally deal in powder cocaine, which is then converted into crack by street-level sellers. … But the 100-to-1 ratio can lead to the ‘anomalous’ result that ‘retail crack dealers get longer sentences than the wholesale drug distributors who supply them the powder cocaine from which their crack is produced.’

“Finally, the Commission stated that the crack/powder sentencing differential ‘fosters disrespect for and lack of confidence in the criminal justice system’ because of a ‘widely-held perception’ that it ‘promotes unwarranted disparity based on race.’ [] Approximately 85 percent of defendants convicted of crack offenses in federal court are black; thus the severe sentences required by the 100-to-1 ratio are imposed ‘primarily upon black offenders.’ ”

The Sentencing Commission has repeatedly urged Congress to act and amend this disparity; it has failed to do so. In the meantime, the sentencing guidelines have shifted from mandatory to advisory on trial judges (long story), so the question remained whether deviating from this 100:1 ratio was something that judges could do on their own. Today’s ruling says yes, they can, and you can read it here, along with much discussion of how LSD sentencing works in America.

Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, with Thomas venting about how he doesn’t like the Court’s whole approach to the sentencing guidelines, and Alito briefly arguing that the guidelines were entitled to more weight.

In a second 7-2 opinion today, the Court further extended judicial discretion in sentencing, allowing a trial court judge to sentence a University of Iowa undergrad low-dollar ecstasy dealer ($30K netted) to 36 months probation, rather than that same length in jail, based on his clean living as a construction subcontractor since his arrest.

Given the constant ratcheting-up of sentences by politicians looking to be “tough on crime,” today’s decisions should help tremendously in allowing judges to be just, humane and merciful.

Entry Filed under: Bush administration, Discrimination, Law, Public Health, Substance Abuse, racism