Rehabilitation is not the goal, indefinite incarceration is. The slavery industry has needs.
Crack vs. Powder Sentencing Before the Supreme Court
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Oh yeah fasho...Im not saying addicts get a free crime pass...just saying I dont think someone should be thrown in jail for abusing drugs (not the corresponding crimes lol) - as headline of the article: jail time for crack abuse vs. coke abuse...
We are >>>>here<<<<<
I used choice figuratively...some are strong enough to do it alone...but I think its rare...and I really dont see how jailing an addict helps their (and consequently our) problem in ANY way...
Congrats on being clean hun...
EXACTLY...its plain to see in this case.
If the goal was (as it should be) to reform addicts, keep the streets clean yadda yadda...we know jail isnt going to change such a lifestyle...makes you wonder what IS its purpose?
ESPECIALLY when certain addictions (ones that affect those of lower socioeconomic classes) are given harsher sentences than others (ones that affect those of higher socioeconimic classes).
werd.
Yeah I know about the safe injection sites in Vancouver, BC Canada...Im def. for that...keep down disease spread and monitor them in case they OD...
And I can see why the eligibility has to be so harsh with the NAOMI project...I mean we dont want to be providing new addicts (that may improve with methodone treatments) with their smack...its a new project I guess with word of mouth on the streets it will be only a matter of time before people start volunteering...
I slightly disagree
don't know if you've ever been to Vancouver's downtown East side, but if you have traveling down from Hastings/Commercial Drive to Hastings/Abbot is a little like watching the gurney scene from Jacob's Ladder seeing things go from bad to fucked up to absurdly fucked up beyond all human belief. Anyone who can still do heroin after seeing that shit is in good need of government assistance Anyone who can live in the midst of that depravity and not still not be able to get into a government rehab program regardless of what it might entail shows a bigger problem with the program than it does the addict.
In a few years i'm taking my own daughters there to scare them straight, although it's not like their own neighborhood is much better.
don't know if you've ever been to Vancouver's downtown East side, but if you have traveling down from Hastings/Commercial Drive to Hastings/Abbot is a little like watching the gurney scene from Jacob's Ladder seeing things go from bad to fucked up to absurdly fucked up beyond all human belief. Anyone who can still do heroin after seeing that shit is in good need of government assistance Anyone who can live in the midst of that depravity and not still not be able to get into a government rehab program regardless of what it might entail shows a bigger problem with the program than it does the addict.
In a few years i'm taking my own daughters there to scare them straight, although it's not like their own neighborhood is much better.
I don't know I still think that THAT particular program should have a higher eligibility requirement than lets say a methodone or other treatment center...I mean it is ADMINISTERING heroin...I mean you might have an argument IF it had a high success rate...but you said yourself the results are AT BEST INCONCLUSIVE
But I def. agree with you something needs to be done and its a horrible state for anyone to be in
If giving someone free heroin will stop them from breaking into my apartment and stealing my laptop I'm all for it. In fact I'll buy them a shot myself. It's still cheaper then getting a gun and less hassle than shooting the bastard and cleaning his blood off my window pane.
Lets face it. There's thousands of Vancouver junkies who get their welfare check and spend it on down. Giving them free heroin is just being honest and stopping some fucking Hong Kong gangster from getting all the money without having to deal with the misery it causes. If it can help somebody quit or at least moderate their habit to the point where they can hold down a job all the better.
As happy as I am that my government is trying to trying to find alternative means to solve the problem I wish that people would stop trying to kiss ass to the USA by putting all these qualifiers in there. It's obvious that the US approach is a complete failure and lets face it. It's not their families getting destroyed. It's not their cars getting broken into (I've had mine ransacked 3 times in two years) so stop acting like Seattle will be the next hub on the Chinese connection if you don't stop riding us. Y'all already got a massive land border with a 3rd world world heroin producing nation so deal with that first. Stop trying to put your power play on us. Let us deal with our problem and y'all go on dealing with yours. Live and let live and maybe both our daughters will spend their allowance on candy instead of alcohol swabs.
WHAT!!! I'm from Canada too.....eh! lolol
The purpose of providing the free heroin OUGHT to be to help the addict become clean...if this TRIAL doesn't prove to do so, I don't think its right to supply an addict so that your property is not stolen...
I don't doubt that addicts spend their welfare checks on drugs...this is a ABUSE of the system...not the rule of the system.
Its a far stretch to say that because some addicts misuse the governments money to buy drugs that we should therefore make it a LAW that addicts should recieve money from the government for drugs...ya digg?
The purpose of providing the free heroin OUGHT to be to help the addict become clean...if this TRIAL doesn't prove to do so, I don't think its right to supply an addict so that your property is not stolen...
I don't doubt that addicts spend their welfare checks on drugs...this is a ABUSE of the system...not the rule of the system.
Its a far stretch to say that because some addicts misuse the governments money to buy drugs that we should therefore make it a LAW that addicts should recieve money from the government for drugs...ya digg?
I remember you now. We had a big beef about whether Eminem should "answer" for his old racist mixtapes back about 2 or 3 years ago.That's not relevant to this discussion right here. What is relevant is that you are in Ontario and I am in BC on the west coast, the place the federal government doesn't give a rat's ass about. 28 people get shot in Scarborough and there's nation wide restrictions on handguns within 3 months. 300+ people die from Heroin overdoses in my city and the federal government reluctantly gives a criminal exemption to the people who shoot dope in a 100 sq foot building in OUR city alone on a trial basis after TWO FUCKING YEAR of lobbying (Americans who oppose state rights take careful note)
While i agree that drug addicts shouldn't be able to use welfare checks to buy their dope, that fact is they are doing it and theres no way we can put a mandate into place to stop them without affecting the welfare recipients that don't. The last thing I'd want to see is a single mother of three selling her ass to some Willie Pickton type because the government automatically assumed she was poking rigs.
As far as taking my shit goes, I already spend 15.5% sales tax on most things I buy (not including booze and tobacco tax) so why shouldn't some of that go to protect what I already have? I don't care how it's done so long as people's human right aren't violated.
Right now our city is in the middle of a crisis. Homeless drug addicts finally figured out that our city is in the middle of a job boom AND that Vancouver is one of the few place you can sleep in an alley in the middle of January and still hope to wake up alive. We need laws and policies that deal with OUR city, not the cities these people are fleeing from; especially with the 2010 winter Olympics coming.
If it were left up to me BC would separate and become its only county, or even better, a part of the USA. Since that probably won't happen you need to understand that your morality is our reality. Shit seems a little different when people are breaking your windows to steal the spare change in your ashtray.
BTW, we don't play that 'eh' shit either
While i agree that drug addicts shouldn't be able to use welfare checks to buy their dope, that fact is they are doing it and theres no way we can put a mandate into place to stop them without affecting the welfare recipients that don't. The last thing I'd want to see is a single mother of three selling her ass to some Willie Pickton type because the government automatically assumed she was poking rigs.
As far as taking my shit goes, I already spend 15.5% sales tax on most things I buy (not including booze and tobacco tax) so why shouldn't some of that go to protect what I already have? I don't care how it's done so long as people's human right aren't violated.
Right now our city is in the middle of a crisis. Homeless drug addicts finally figured out that our city is in the middle of a job boom AND that Vancouver is one of the few place you can sleep in an alley in the middle of January and still hope to wake up alive. We need laws and policies that deal with OUR city, not the cities these people are fleeing from; especially with the 2010 winter Olympics coming.
If it were left up to me BC would separate and become its only county, or even better, a part of the USA. Since that probably won't happen you need to understand that your morality is our reality. Shit seems a little different when people are breaking your windows to steal the spare change in your ashtray.
BTW, we don't play that 'eh' shit either
Woowww I know that, I'm from Toronto "eh" was a JOKE...sarcasm...relax...I was trying to lighten up the convo. I sense some tension...are you still caught up in 3 year old feelings about Eminem's BLATANTLY RACIST comments?
We are having an intelligent convo...I understand its close to home for you but again RELAX...I'm not the junkie who stole your car stereo...homeeeeeeeey...we are both discussing solutions...lets not get emotional.
AGAIN if a TRIAL hasn't proven whether it will CLEAN UP or DO NILL or even worse....FURTHER FUCK UP an already fucked up situation it is RIDICULOUS to demand that it be lax on eligibility and requirements before we know what the outcomes are.
I do lab research and you would be surprised how MANY trial that in theory seem to have great outcomes later end up causing additional problems on TOP of the ones they intended to solve.
And I'm not even gonna address your comments on providing heroin for addicts (not for their recovery, nor for a trial that may aid in their recovery but merely so they don't steal your property???!!! BE SERIOUS) out of tax dollars...
Which leads me to question..are you serious about this? I'm so hoping I'm reading this wrong. If you ARE serious and I didn't misread I can tell you some serious ethical issues that would arise if this were ever to go forth (NEVER HAPPEN.)
As far as welfare...of course with ANYTHING, rules are broken. I disagree with you on your assumption that nothing can be done.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the welfare system on the more practical level...there are case workers and the like that ROUTINELY check up on recipients, make sure they are doing some form of volunteer work, schooling, are paying their bills etc.
STRUNG OUT junkies are simply not be able to hide their circumstances for long from their caseworkers...my mom works with low income people (welfare, immigration, women's issues etc.)...they get cut off as quick as they get put on SIMPLE AS THAT.
We are having an intelligent convo...I understand its close to home for you but again RELAX...I'm not the junkie who stole your car stereo...homeeeeeeeey...we are both discussing solutions...lets not get emotional.
AGAIN if a TRIAL hasn't proven whether it will CLEAN UP or DO NILL or even worse....FURTHER FUCK UP an already fucked up situation it is RIDICULOUS to demand that it be lax on eligibility and requirements before we know what the outcomes are.
I do lab research and you would be surprised how MANY trial that in theory seem to have great outcomes later end up causing additional problems on TOP of the ones they intended to solve.
And I'm not even gonna address your comments on providing heroin for addicts (not for their recovery, nor for a trial that may aid in their recovery but merely so they don't steal your property???!!! BE SERIOUS) out of tax dollars...
Which leads me to question..are you serious about this? I'm so hoping I'm reading this wrong. If you ARE serious and I didn't misread I can tell you some serious ethical issues that would arise if this were ever to go forth (NEVER HAPPEN.)
As far as welfare...of course with ANYTHING, rules are broken. I disagree with you on your assumption that nothing can be done.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the welfare system on the more practical level...there are case workers and the like that ROUTINELY check up on recipients, make sure they are doing some form of volunteer work, schooling, are paying their bills etc.
STRUNG OUT junkies are simply not be able to hide their circumstances for long from their caseworkers...my mom works with low income people (welfare, immigration, women's issues etc.)...they get cut off as quick as they get put on SIMPLE AS THAT.
At some point I wonder, what's the point of having a treatment strategy that focuses on a ridiculously small segment of addicts? What is that meant to prove? The project fell back 10 months and had countless budget overruns because of how stingy he rules were. It got to the point where the program directors had to go into outreach mode just to find suitable volunteers for a FREE HEROIN study in Vancouver.
realize that the study might have a negative result if the rules are slackened, but that's why it's a study and not a policy. That being said, I don't know if you've been to some of these neighborhoods in Vancouver but I don't think it's even humanly possible for the drug problem to get any worse here.
I am very familiar with the welfare system because I grew up on it. My mom was a semi-functional drug addict and it was hardly an issue at all. Her case workers were more concerned with things like how much money i made at my summer job than anything she put in her body. Maybe Ontario has different standards, but in BC they care much more about how much income you have coming in then what you do with it (so long as you're not homeless).
My mom never did heroin (at least not that I know) but she did use a lot of legally prescribed drugs that were similar (i.e. Oxycodin, Demerol) Because she was on the system all of her prescriptions were free. because of that she never had an accidental overdose, never had to resort to crime, never got a criminal record, and was still able to live her life with a sense of dignity. Eventually, after a lot of work she managed to kick the habit and has been off them nearly 10 years. She also has a good job and a great husband.
What is so unethical about applying the same philosophy to heroin? I agree that issuing it for the sole purpose of reducing crime is a bad idea, but I sure as hell won't complain if it's one of the benefits. There's also the added bonus of having an addicts does watched and regulated by a doctor who can possibly move the patient in a direction of moderation or maybe help them quit entirely. The public savings on incarceration and law enforcement could be huge as well.
BTW I'm sorry about the anger. This is an issue that really hits close to home for me though. I've lost a fair share of friends and loved ones to drugs and I am tired of watching our government (well, your government really) use the same tired strategies to combat the problem, especially when that government is completely out of touch with my city and lacks any real credibility. I mean Harper is about to impose mandatory minimum sentencing for fucks sake. I've also noticed that many in Ontario like to think that they speak for the entire nation when both of our cities are as culturally different as night and day. I wrongly thought that 'eh' comment was a reflection of that arrogance. I was wrong.
realize that the study might have a negative result if the rules are slackened, but that's why it's a study and not a policy. That being said, I don't know if you've been to some of these neighborhoods in Vancouver but I don't think it's even humanly possible for the drug problem to get any worse here.
I am very familiar with the welfare system because I grew up on it. My mom was a semi-functional drug addict and it was hardly an issue at all. Her case workers were more concerned with things like how much money i made at my summer job than anything she put in her body. Maybe Ontario has different standards, but in BC they care much more about how much income you have coming in then what you do with it (so long as you're not homeless).
My mom never did heroin (at least not that I know) but she did use a lot of legally prescribed drugs that were similar (i.e. Oxycodin, Demerol) Because she was on the system all of her prescriptions were free. because of that she never had an accidental overdose, never had to resort to crime, never got a criminal record, and was still able to live her life with a sense of dignity. Eventually, after a lot of work she managed to kick the habit and has been off them nearly 10 years. She also has a good job and a great husband.
What is so unethical about applying the same philosophy to heroin? I agree that issuing it for the sole purpose of reducing crime is a bad idea, but I sure as hell won't complain if it's one of the benefits. There's also the added bonus of having an addicts does watched and regulated by a doctor who can possibly move the patient in a direction of moderation or maybe help them quit entirely. The public savings on incarceration and law enforcement could be huge as well.
BTW I'm sorry about the anger. This is an issue that really hits close to home for me though. I've lost a fair share of friends and loved ones to drugs and I am tired of watching our government (well, your government really) use the same tired strategies to combat the problem, especially when that government is completely out of touch with my city and lacks any real credibility. I mean Harper is about to impose mandatory minimum sentencing for fucks sake. I've also noticed that many in Ontario like to think that they speak for the entire nation when both of our cities are as culturally different as night and day. I wrongly thought that 'eh' comment was a reflection of that arrogance. I was wrong.
Esai Morales (@ around the 6:00 mark) starts to drop the truth about drugs being introduced into the US. Bill, in his traditional anti- truth purge tries to call him a conspiracy theorist.
What is of importance is what Esai says, partly in jest, about why he is shutting up about the government and its connection to the drug problem....hmmmm.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/48jONDGuuUI&hl=en[/FLASH]
Again, the sentencing is a distraction to the primary problem. The availability of the drugs themselves.
What is of importance is what Esai says, partly in jest, about why he is shutting up about the government and its connection to the drug problem....hmmmm.[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/48jONDGuuUI&hl=en[/FLASH]
Again, the sentencing is a distraction to the primary problem. The availability of the drugs themselves.
<font size="5"><center>
Racial disparities in sentencing
rise after guidelines loosened</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By Marisa Taylor
March 12, 2010
WASHINGTON — Black and Hispanic men are more likely to receive longer prison sentences than their white counterparts since the Supreme Court loosened federal sentencing rules, a government study has concluded.
The study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission reignited a long-running debate about whether federal judges need to be held to mandatory guidelines in order to stamp out what might appear to be inherent biases and dramatically disparate sentences.
The report analyzed sentences meted out since the January 2005 U.S. v. Booker decision gave federal judges much more sentencing discretion.
For years, legal experts have argued over the disparity in sentencing between black and white men. The commission found that the difference peaked in 1999 with blacks receiving 14 percent longer sentences. By 2002, however, the commission found no statistical difference.
After the Booker decision, "those differences appear to have been increasing steadily," with black men receiving sentences that were up to 10 percent longer than those imposed on whites, the commission said.
Using another method of analyzing the data, the study found black men received sentences that were 23 percent longer than white men's.
Hispanic men, meanwhile, received sentences that were almost 7 percent longer than white men's. Immigrants also got longer sentences than U.S. citizens did.
The report also found that defendants with some college education consistently have received shorter sentences than those with no college education, but the differences in sentence length remained about the same after the decision.
The commission warned that its report should be read with caution and may not mean that race or class is influencing judges when they hand down longer sentences.
"Judges make decisions when sentencing offenders based on many legal and other legitimate considerations that are not or cannot be measured," said the commission, an independent body of the federal judiciary. "The analysis presented in this report cannot explain why the observed differences in sentence length exist but only that they do exist."
For example, a judge who's sentencing two offenders who were convicted of similar crimes might impose a longer sentence on the offender with a more violent criminal past, information that wasn't available to the study's authors.
Nonetheless, opponents of looser sentencing guidelines pounced on the commission's study, saying it demonstrates that the rules are needed.
"People who commit similar crimes should receive similar sentences," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. "Unfortunately, without sentencing guidelines for courts to follow, some individuals have received harsher penalties than others despite committing similar crimes."
Douglas A. Berman, a professor and sentencing expert at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, said it wasn't that simple because the study "doesn't provide us with a perfect why or how."
Berman said he suspected that if racial bias did exist, it cropped up much earlier, when prosecutors, for example, decided whom to offer plea bargains to or when defense attorneys chose to have clients plead guilty or go to trial.
"The first response if you're not thinking hard about this is the judges are just being biased," he said. "But I think the whys and the hows have much more to do with prosecutors and defense attorneys than they have to do with the work of judges. A judge can only respond to what's in front of him or her."
The report's release late Thursday came as the House of Representatives and the Senate consider legislation that would reduce disparities in sentencing guidelines between powder cocaine and crack cocaine.
Defense advocates have argued for more than 20 years that the more severe sentences given for crack cocaine offenses, compared with those handed down for crimes that involve powder cocaine, were unfair to African-American defendants. A majority of crack cocaine defendants are African-American, while most powder cocaine defendants are white.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission recognized the disparity and recommended lighter penalties in crack cocaine cases, prompting judges to review the sentences of prisoners across the country.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/12/90316/racial-disparities-in-sentencing.html
`
Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices:
An Update of the Booker Report’s Multivariate Regression Analysis.
`
Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices:
An Update of the Booker Report’s Multivariate Regression Analysis.
`
<font size="5"><center>
Will 'Fair Sentencing'
Make a Dent in Black Incarceration?</font size><font size="4">
President Obama recently signed a law that will reduce the disparity
in mandatory minimum sentencing for crack- and powder-cocaine
offenses. But as the contrasting treatment of two brothers
demonstrates, there's no guarantee the new guidelines
will help all offenders currently serving time.</font size></center>
By: Lynette Holloway | Posted: September 21, 2010
Lawrence Garrison felt a tinge of hope last month when President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for mandatory minimum prison sentences.
The hope was not for him, you see. He is a free man, so to speak. The 37-year-old Howard University graduate was released from prison in January after serving 11 years of a 15.5-year prison sentence ordered in 1998 for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine and crack.
Now his hope is for his twin brother, Lamont, who was sentenced in the same case and is not scheduled for release until Feb. 8, 2012. Lamont, who also graduated from Howard, is still serving the remainder of his 19.5-year sentence in Manchester, Ky., for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine and crack.
Lamont has an uphill battle because the new law does not cover people sentenced before Nov. 1, 2010. However, thousands of people will benefit from shorter sentences under the Fair Sentencing Act, including scores who have already been convicted but aren't scheduled for sentencing until after the law takes effect.
For nearly 30 years, defendants charged with crack-cocaine offenses, mostly African-American and Hispanic men, have been given tougher sentences than those convicted of powder-cocaine offenses, usually white defendants, according to The Washington Post. A person caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine was subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. In a 100-to-1 disparity, those caught with crack cocaine were handed that same five-year sentence for carrying just 5 grams. A crack offender carrying 10 grams was given a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; the same penalty would not be considered for a powder-cocaine defendant unless the suspect was caught with 1,000 grams.
The Fair Sentencing Act reduces the disparity to 18 to 1: Powder-cocaine offenders still face the five-year mandatory sentence for carrying 500 grams, but now a suspect would have to be convicted of selling 28 grams or more of crack to receive that five-year sentence. To receive a 10-year sentence, a defendant would have to be in possession of 280 grams or more of crack. African Americans make up 84 percent of all federal crack-cocaine convictions, according to a study by the NAACP, which worked for decades to overturn the guidelines.
The law also eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession of crack cocaine (as opposed to possession with intent to distribute), according to criminal justice experts and advocates. While the kinks are still being worked out by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which establishes sentences, polices and practices for the federal courts, the act is expected to affect the sentences of nearly 3,000 prisoners a year, says Nkechi Taifa, a senior policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Open Society Policy Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group that also worked on changing the guidelines.
More than 80 percent of criminals sentenced to federal prison for cocaine offenses are African American, she says, citing federal prison statistics. She added that the federal government would save an estimated $42 million over the next five years if it housed fewer prisoners.
"But the struggle continues," Taifa told The Root. "There are thousands who are still incarcerated. The act is not retroactive, and there are questions about scores of cases in the pipeline. They have been tried but not sentenced. We have questions about whether the act will apply to them. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is still working all of this out." Advocates like Taifa are pushing to make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, saying that there are a number of prisoners, like Lamont Garrison, who should be released.
For his part, Lawrence is happy about the change. He and his mother, Karen, have become vital advocates for those sentenced under the harsh guidelines. "It's a great start," he told The Root. "I'm really happy about it. I hope it will help my twin brother, who still languishes in prison. It's been a long time coming."
Lawrence was released early from prison in Elkton, Ohio, after a 2007 amendment to sentencing guidelines reduced penalties for crack cocaine offenses, shaving 4.5 years off his sentence. It also reduced Lamont's sentence by three years, but that one was about four years longer in the first place, based on additional charges of obstructing justice because Lamont testified in his own defense.
The Garrisons were a textbook case for advocates fighting to overturn the sentencing guidelines, which resulted from crack-cocaine turf wars that dominated headlines and whose death tolls propelled lawmakers to exact harsh punishment on dealers. Crack cocaine was thought to be so dangerous about 30 years ago that mothers were said to be delivering babies addicted to crack cocaine, and people were walking through the streets zombielike in search of the next high. And then Len Bias, a Maryland basketball star who was headed for the NBA, was out partying and died of a crack-cocaine overdose.
Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington office and senior vice president for advocacy and policy, who was actively involved in overturning the guidelines, recalled Bias' death and the political atmosphere at the time of the passage of the sentencing guidelines.
"Len Bias' death jacked up the sentencing just before the decision on the guidelines for crack cocaine," Shelton said in an interview with The Root. "It turns out he hadn't even used crack. It was powder. But the misassumption that he used crack cocaine, along with everything else, made politicians decide even more needed to be done."
Then along came the Garrison twins, who were working their way through college at an auto-body shop when the owner, a drug dealer, was arrested, according to the Web site for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. He reportedly implicated the twins and several others in a major drug ring to reduce his sentence. Even though police did not uncover drugs or paraphernalia on either of the brothers or in their home, they received harsh mandatory minimum crack-cocaine sentences, Lawrence told The Root. The twins reportedly said they had weak court-appointed lawyers, who fell asleep during the trial and bungled the investigative and discovery processes.
"It's sad that these draconian laws have haunted people of color for years," Lawrence said. "But lots of organizations worked hard over the last several decades to get to this point. I believe that there is nothing but good feelings on both sides. I'm looking forwarding to helping my brother and others as well."
Lynette Holloway is a Chicago-based writer. She is a former New York Times reporter and associate editor for Ebony magazine.
http://www.theroot.com/views/will-fair-sentencing-really-make-dent-black-incarceration?page=0,0
Will 'Fair Sentencing'
Make a Dent in Black Incarceration?</font size><font size="4">
President Obama recently signed a law that will reduce the disparity
in mandatory minimum sentencing for crack- and powder-cocaine
offenses. But as the contrasting treatment of two brothers
demonstrates, there's no guarantee the new guidelines
will help all offenders currently serving time.</font size></center>
By: Lynette Holloway | Posted: September 21, 2010
Lawrence Garrison felt a tinge of hope last month when President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for mandatory minimum prison sentences.
The hope was not for him, you see. He is a free man, so to speak. The 37-year-old Howard University graduate was released from prison in January after serving 11 years of a 15.5-year prison sentence ordered in 1998 for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine and crack.
Now his hope is for his twin brother, Lamont, who was sentenced in the same case and is not scheduled for release until Feb. 8, 2012. Lamont, who also graduated from Howard, is still serving the remainder of his 19.5-year sentence in Manchester, Ky., for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine and crack.
Lamont has an uphill battle because the new law does not cover people sentenced before Nov. 1, 2010. However, thousands of people will benefit from shorter sentences under the Fair Sentencing Act, including scores who have already been convicted but aren't scheduled for sentencing until after the law takes effect.
For nearly 30 years, defendants charged with crack-cocaine offenses, mostly African-American and Hispanic men, have been given tougher sentences than those convicted of powder-cocaine offenses, usually white defendants, according to The Washington Post. A person caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine was subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. In a 100-to-1 disparity, those caught with crack cocaine were handed that same five-year sentence for carrying just 5 grams. A crack offender carrying 10 grams was given a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; the same penalty would not be considered for a powder-cocaine defendant unless the suspect was caught with 1,000 grams.
The Fair Sentencing Act reduces the disparity to 18 to 1: Powder-cocaine offenders still face the five-year mandatory sentence for carrying 500 grams, but now a suspect would have to be convicted of selling 28 grams or more of crack to receive that five-year sentence. To receive a 10-year sentence, a defendant would have to be in possession of 280 grams or more of crack. African Americans make up 84 percent of all federal crack-cocaine convictions, according to a study by the NAACP, which worked for decades to overturn the guidelines.
The law also eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession of crack cocaine (as opposed to possession with intent to distribute), according to criminal justice experts and advocates. While the kinks are still being worked out by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which establishes sentences, polices and practices for the federal courts, the act is expected to affect the sentences of nearly 3,000 prisoners a year, says Nkechi Taifa, a senior policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Open Society Policy Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group that also worked on changing the guidelines.
More than 80 percent of criminals sentenced to federal prison for cocaine offenses are African American, she says, citing federal prison statistics. She added that the federal government would save an estimated $42 million over the next five years if it housed fewer prisoners.
"But the struggle continues," Taifa told The Root. "There are thousands who are still incarcerated. The act is not retroactive, and there are questions about scores of cases in the pipeline. They have been tried but not sentenced. We have questions about whether the act will apply to them. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is still working all of this out." Advocates like Taifa are pushing to make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, saying that there are a number of prisoners, like Lamont Garrison, who should be released.
For his part, Lawrence is happy about the change. He and his mother, Karen, have become vital advocates for those sentenced under the harsh guidelines. "It's a great start," he told The Root. "I'm really happy about it. I hope it will help my twin brother, who still languishes in prison. It's been a long time coming."
Lawrence was released early from prison in Elkton, Ohio, after a 2007 amendment to sentencing guidelines reduced penalties for crack cocaine offenses, shaving 4.5 years off his sentence. It also reduced Lamont's sentence by three years, but that one was about four years longer in the first place, based on additional charges of obstructing justice because Lamont testified in his own defense.
The Garrisons were a textbook case for advocates fighting to overturn the sentencing guidelines, which resulted from crack-cocaine turf wars that dominated headlines and whose death tolls propelled lawmakers to exact harsh punishment on dealers. Crack cocaine was thought to be so dangerous about 30 years ago that mothers were said to be delivering babies addicted to crack cocaine, and people were walking through the streets zombielike in search of the next high. And then Len Bias, a Maryland basketball star who was headed for the NBA, was out partying and died of a crack-cocaine overdose.
Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington office and senior vice president for advocacy and policy, who was actively involved in overturning the guidelines, recalled Bias' death and the political atmosphere at the time of the passage of the sentencing guidelines.
"Len Bias' death jacked up the sentencing just before the decision on the guidelines for crack cocaine," Shelton said in an interview with The Root. "It turns out he hadn't even used crack. It was powder. But the misassumption that he used crack cocaine, along with everything else, made politicians decide even more needed to be done."
Then along came the Garrison twins, who were working their way through college at an auto-body shop when the owner, a drug dealer, was arrested, according to the Web site for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. He reportedly implicated the twins and several others in a major drug ring to reduce his sentence. Even though police did not uncover drugs or paraphernalia on either of the brothers or in their home, they received harsh mandatory minimum crack-cocaine sentences, Lawrence told The Root. The twins reportedly said they had weak court-appointed lawyers, who fell asleep during the trial and bungled the investigative and discovery processes.
"It's sad that these draconian laws have haunted people of color for years," Lawrence said. "But lots of organizations worked hard over the last several decades to get to this point. I believe that there is nothing but good feelings on both sides. I'm looking forwarding to helping my brother and others as well."
Lynette Holloway is a Chicago-based writer. She is a former New York Times reporter and associate editor for Ebony magazine.
http://www.theroot.com/views/will-fair-sentencing-really-make-dent-black-incarceration?page=0,0
Similar threads
