or FOR legalization, depending on your viewpoint.
Crack vs. Powder Sentencing Before the Supreme Court
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Did you read that off the side of a crack pipe? I double dog dare you to cite any references for any that.
Do you think this kind of bitchass, self-hating attitude is worth the 3 seconds it would take to answer you.
What would be a 'partial legalization' and what would it be expected to accomplish ???
Make it legal so that crack heads don't lose their jobs??? I would fire any som bitch under my employ if I thought he/she was using that shit. What happens when they expend their funds buying the partially legalized shit - steal from their employers and fellow-employees to keep it going ??? Do you want 'relatively functional' people carrying out critical functions of your work??? I'm sure there are lots of non-critical jobs that legal crackheads could be entrusted with, but I doubt very many of them pay very many $$$ -- which tends to mean not a lot of $$$ to buy legal crack. Still have to make-up the diference, somehow.
I'm not concerned with drug abuse among middle-class whites. They're usually able to afford clinics, when they're ready. I'm concerned with better alternatives to drugs in our community, especially among the poorer of us. Isn't that where an epidemic lies ???
This sounds a lot like the arguments made by the counter-culture of the 60's.
QueEx
Partial legalization would come in two forms.
First, I believe that possession of any drug under a certain amount should be decriminalized. Once a drug addict is given a criminal record for simple possession they lose a good deal of their incentive to ever get clean.
Also,I think that doctors should be allowed to prescribe addicts maintenance level doses of cocaine to help help them to quit or at least take action to reduce the harm and frequency of their usage. It's a similar concept to the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) project or the Alcohol moderation program. Following this program would make an addicts fix cheaper and eliminate a lot of the criminal element that surrounds it.
As far as the jobs go. In Canada the law states that a person cannot be fired for failing a drug test unless, a) the employer can prove that the person was high at work or b) the employer can prove that the person's off work intoxication was having a seriously detrimental effect on the user's job performance. I think a similar system in the states would be a lot more practical. I also think things should go one step further and have all drug tests be standardized, require a warrant and be carried out by certified government officials.
I disagree with decriminalization, except, perhaps, for marijuana. I do believe, however, that there should be some process through which one charged with minor possession, for personal use, could have that record expunged -- as such a record may effectively eliminate a person from meaningful education and employment opportunities. A person ought not be punished forever for bad judgment and those kinds of records, I believe, actually contribute to the creation or maintenance of the underclass.
I'd like to see some real, independent, studies which show that the number of people using these prescribable drugs doesn't increase significantly. If so, these programs might have some promise. I don't think that creating significantly more addicts through legalization would be the way to go. That sounds like creating a whole new set of problems.
Thats not a bad rule but doesn't it put too much of a burden on employers to wait until something happens before they can take action??? I don't know how that Canadian rule is actually applied in practice, but I can see where if the burden of proving detrimental effect is too high, the employers would be severely handicapped. On the other hand, if placed too low, it wouldn't be any different than the rules used by most U.S. employers.
Standardized tests might not be a bad idea but requiring a warrant would be assinine. Whose work site is it anyway? - the business owner or the addicts? I understand completely why a warrant is required in the criminal context, but giving addicts that protection on the job site would, in my opinion, turn the asylum over to the nuts.
QueEx
I agree that you come off as bitchass and selfhating. I just wondered if you could try to scrape up any evidence to backup the buckwild bullshit you always rant about and I guess the answer is still no.
Sorry about that statement Makk shouldn't have came at you like that but you started it.
If you will, go back to when Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution he based it on the Federalist Papers from the Founding Fathers. He believed in a strict interpetation of the Constitution thats when life as we know it began to change. Remember the Constitution was written to protect the interest of rich white landowners. Below is just a brief passage from those papers it shows imo how government is designed to protect the interest of the rich thru checks and balances meaning that whatever the people decide the ruling class has a way to counter it.
"that whenever any two of the three branches of government shall concur in opinion, each by the voices of two thirds of their whole number, that a convention is necessary for altering the constitution, or CORRECTING BREACHES OF IT, a convention shall be called for the purpose. "
As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?
When the government is in a position to react to any challenges by the people it usurps the very will of the people. Example Bush won thru the Electoral College and was awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court. Clinton won thru a plurality which he planned by bring Perot in the election. Black people have to organize so we can keep our issues before the government or we will always be responding to isolated incidents like Jenna while the overall health of our community declines.
Excuse me brother, in my skimming of your remarks along with my response there emerged a gap which your reply is relevant.
I'm calling into question this
Saying these mandatory minimums and other excessive racialized penalties is due to black people complaining about crime is what I was referring to. That is what I'd like to see some evidence of.
The following is a result of a prescribed heroin study done in Switzerland:
A similar program that has also worked well in my city is the Insite clinic. Basically it's a place where drug addicts can go and shoot up with clean works, no fear of prosecution, and a supervising nurse. At first many people were worried that the having such a clinic would encourage drug use, but the exact opposite happened. Instead, hundreds of addicts were referred to addiction services. There was also a sharp drop in overdose deaths (Vancouver had over 350 a year). When you walk in that neighborhood now there's a LOT less needles on the ground as well, which suggests that it's helping reduce the spread of AIDS.
As for workplace drug tests in practice, I can only say this. I'm nearly 30 and have never been asked to take a drug test in my life. The only people I know who do are people directly involved in the transportation industry (i.e. truck drivers and airline employees), the medical industry (even then, only people who handle narcotics), law enforcement, and military. Also, with the severe labor shortage in our city many people are starting to turn a blind eye to even these infractions. Case in point I know two LPN's who smoke weed on a regular basis.
And yes, I do think it's a huge invasion on a worker's rights and freedoms for an employer to test to see what drugs a person may be using outside of work. To me it's no different than an employer making random and routine inspections of worker's cars to make sure that they didn't contain stolen property.
Now if that worker had been suspected of stealing company property that would be different. It would also be different if it was a job that required an exceptional level of personal integrity (It would be hard to trust a police officer that had a stolen deck in his car), but for the most part this would be almost criminally invasive. The same standard applies for drug tests.
Here's a pretty good explanation of what led to the 1986 Anti Drug laws, I found it on Black Perspective and Introspection blog.
I think back to the crack epidemic that destroyed our communities all across this country from the early to mid 1980’s through the 1990’s. In an effort to stop drug dealers from practicing their genocidal hustle of selling crack cocaine in our communities we sought out police and judicial support in helping ensure that those who were caught selling this poison spent sometime in jail versus being arrested and right back on the streets a few days later selling crack again. So through protest and tirades this government was more than happy to come up with mandatory sentencing which sounded good and from the perspective of many of those who seen drug dealing as the root of many problems in our community, it was the answer to their prayers. To the credit of many of our conscious brothers and sisters they were opposed to these sentencing guidelines from the start, however their objections fell on deaf ears and in 1986 the evil one Ronald Regan signed into law one of the most egregious and racist laws enacted in the last 25 years.
I know nettie is always bitching about something but in this case I think he is correct. If memory serves this concept began in Detroit at the behest of some alderman or someone there who is in fact a black community leader..or something.
I'll see if I can find it. And I also think Jesse was asked for input on this matter too.
Give me some time to find some info on what I "think" I remember on this debate.
-VG
congress passed the anti drug abuse act of 1986 in response to the enormous media attention given to crack cocaine. just another case of politicians pandering to the masses, addressing the issue(s) that the public perceives to be most important.
an interesting fact is that it was 2 republicans (hatch and sessions) that introduced the drug sentencing reform act of 2001 which sought to reduce the 100:1 ratio down to 20:1. as you know, congress did not take action on it.
an interesting fact is that it was 2 republicans (hatch and sessions) that introduced the drug sentencing reform act of 2001 which sought to reduce the 100:1 ratio down to 20:1. as you know, congress did not take action on it.
I'd be really shocked to see the congessional black caucus behind the legislation. You're saying one guy in detroit started the whole thing? wtf?
My apologies to Nittie.
Is this the equivalent of Jesse Lee Patterson getting some legislation through on the behalf of black people complaining? I was in 7-8th grade in 86 and this wasn't covered in any of my classes
Cranrab- That's what I always thought. The mid 80's was when every news show across the country showed nothing but black people as savage criminals and talking about crack cocaine every 5 seconds.
Funny how we know now that good ol Uncle Sam was funding his Nicaraguan campaign in the 80s with money received from selling cocaine in America.
Hey, maybe powder cocaine has lower punishments in case anyone tried to prosecute members of our government? Nah no reason for that.
I wish it had more detail.
It sounds like the politicians did their own thing pretending to be answering a call for a solution to ghetto crime. My bad Nittie. You seem to be correct.
I started a little observation game-how long will it take for the latest street walking crack-ho to start looking like the mummy in the glass case at Ripley's? Believe it or not, they're still walking the strip after they look like that. After observing these wretched transformations for nearly two decades, I've come two conclusions: The next slinger who is just as foul as the last. And: The supply of these vile creatures is as plentiful as the drugs they sling. I say lock them all in isolation booths and force them to smoke crack night and day. Force it through vents so they inhale it until their teeth rot and fall out. Force it in their lungs until their bones fossilize and their joints freeze. Until their flesh festers and their innards digest themselves. And when they die, dump their carcasses on the the front lawn of the judges who would deign to set them free.
I'd be really shocked to see the congessional black caucus behind the legislation. You're saying one guy in detroit started the whole thing? wtf?
My apologies to Nittie.
Is this the equivalent of Jesse Lee Patterson getting some legislation through on the behalf of black people complaining? I was in 7-8th grade in 86 and this wasn't covered in any of my classes
Cranrab- That's what I always thought. The mid 80's was when every news show across the country showed nothing but black people as savage criminals and talking about crack cocaine every 5 seconds.
Funny how we know now that good ol Uncle Sam was funding his Nicaraguan campaign in the 80s with money received from selling cocaine in America.
Hey, maybe powder cocaine has lower punishments in case anyone tried to prosecute members of our government? Nah no reason for that.
Don't cash the check yet Makk.
You know I don't like dropping half-baked information and stearing brothers off the cliff. I'm looking for some news reports or something to corroborate this but I honestly believe I saw this with it first became an issue. That some minister or alderman or somebody didn't want the legislation pulled because of how crack has fucked up communities. I know I saw it.
-VG
one alderman in detroit does change national policy
what's the real story- who lobbied whatever scumbag who pushed it to make it into the 86 law? you mean to tell me it was the innocent snowballing of a hotbutton issue? I dont believe it.
I have seen many comments made about the need to de-criminalize certain substances. With as much damage that illegal drugs have done in our communities, the mere usage has done far less damage than already legal drugs. By "mere usage", I mean the direct effects of ingestion, not the effects of the substance being illegal, which is where the vast majority of damage is currently being done. For anyone who thinks that we would have vast armies of junkies wandering the streets, I look to the streets. Never has there ever been any real shortage of illegal substances available in the hood. Now the quality may have suffered, but not the ultimate availability. Also, lets take a look at how many deaths drug use actually causes:
Because of the above article, and other reasons, I believe it the Prohibition of drugs, not the drugs themselves, which have cause most of the suffering.
In sum, it is not a "war on drugs" but a "war on each other".
Judging from this, even if the amount of deaths doubled, it would still be dwarfed by deaths from other drugs, which are legal.
Because of the above article, and other reasons, I believe it the Prohibition of drugs, not the drugs themselves, which have cause most of the suffering.
In sum, it is not a "war on drugs" but a "war on each other".
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more.
Feds cut sentences for crack cocaine
November 1, 2007
By Erik Potter Post-Tribune staff writer
New federal sentencing guidelines are set to go into effect today that will reduce the average sentence for a crack cocaine offense by 15 months.
The change, put in place by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, could be applied retroactively, which would mean an early release for more than 260 prisoners in Northern Indiana, and 19,500 nationwide.
"This is a clear recognition by Congress that the penalties imposed (for crack) were unfair," said Kerry Collins, a community defender at the federal courthouse in Hammond.
The reason for the sentence reduction is to address a disparity created in the 1980s when Congress established mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
The law set up a system where crack cocaine -- which is made from powder cocaine -- carried much stiffer penalties than its powdered derivative.
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.
That disparity has earned particular criticism because of the racial overtones it carries, as crack offenders are more likely to be black and powder cocaine offenders are more likely to be white or Hispanic.
For instance, of the 19,500 prisoners nationwide convicted of crack cocaine offenses who would be eligible for reduced sentences, more than 85 percent of them are black and only 6 percent are white.
"That's the (biggest) issue: What community are we targeting?" Collins said. "It's pretty clear that the crack guidelines have targeted the black community."
In a report to Congress this spring, the sentencing commission called the disparity an object of "universal criticism from representatives of the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups."
The sentencing commission cannot change the minimum sentence law, but its recommendations can effect sentences for drug amounts that fall below, between or above the five and 50 gram levels.
"The (sentence) reduction is good," said David Vandercoy, professor of criminal law at Valparaiso University. "Most people would think it's long overdue ... (though) they would probably think (the disparity) is still too great."
The sentencing commission has tried multiple times before to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences in line with each other.
It attempted to change the guidelines in 1995 to treat both drugs the same, but that effort was overruled by Congress. It pushed for action again in 1997 and 2002, but nothing happened.
The changes will take effect unless Congress passes legislation to stop it, which it had not done by Wednesday afternoon.
The sentencing commission is still considering applying the guideline changes to people already in prison. It is accepting public input at least through Nov. 13 and it is not clear how long after that it will take to make a decision.
http://www.post-trib.com/news/630662,crack.article
Thousands Could Be Released Early
Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
An independent panel is considering reducing the sentences of inmates incarcerated in federal prisons for crack cocaine offenses, which would make thousands of people immediately eligible to be freed.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal prison sentences, established more lenient guidelines this spring for future crack cocaine offenders. The panel is scheduled to consider today a proposal to make the new guidelines retroactive.
Should the panel adopt the new policy, the sentences of 19,500 inmates would be reduced by an average of 27 months. About 3,800 inmates now imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine could be freed within the next year, according to the commission's analysis. The proposal would cover only inmates in federal prisons and not those in state correctional facilities, where the vast majority of people convicted of drug offenses are held.
By far the largest number -- more than 1,400 -- of those who would be eligible for sentence reductions were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over Northern Virginia and the Richmond area, according to an analysis done by the commission. Nearly 280 inmates convicted in federal courts in Maryland would be eligible, as well as almost 270 prisoners found guilty in the District of Columbia.
FULL ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201745.html?hpid=topnews
Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
An independent panel is considering reducing the sentences of inmates incarcerated in federal prisons for crack cocaine offenses, which would make thousands of people immediately eligible to be freed.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal prison sentences, established more lenient guidelines this spring for future crack cocaine offenders. The panel is scheduled to consider today a proposal to make the new guidelines retroactive.
Should the panel adopt the new policy, the sentences of 19,500 inmates would be reduced by an average of 27 months. About 3,800 inmates now imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine could be freed within the next year, according to the commission's analysis. The proposal would cover only inmates in federal prisons and not those in state correctional facilities, where the vast majority of people convicted of drug offenses are held.
By far the largest number -- more than 1,400 -- of those who would be eligible for sentence reductions were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over Northern Virginia and the Richmond area, according to an analysis done by the commission. Nearly 280 inmates convicted in federal courts in Maryland would be eligible, as well as almost 270 prisoners found guilty in the District of Columbia.
FULL ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201745.html?hpid=topnews
There should not be a distinction between a user and dealer. Why is a dealer with a couple hundred pounds of pot given prison time, but a pot customer gets a parking ticket type fine?
It is similiar to giving a getaway driver involved in a bank robbery less time since he didn't hold up the bank with a gun. The drug laws is not consistently applied in same way as other crimes.
The crack addict and dealers should be charged under a law that treats them equally responsible. The user creates the drug problem in this country because of the demand. It entices people from impoverished areas to sell. Do you think a Frank Lucas would travel to Vietnam to sell something that only made a couple thousand dollars versus the reported 300 million he made? When they busted him, another drug dealer with higher prices and lower quality stepped into his shoes, nothing was solved.
It is similiar to giving a getaway driver involved in a bank robbery less time since he didn't hold up the bank with a gun. The drug laws is not consistently applied in same way as other crimes.
The crack addict and dealers should be charged under a law that treats them equally responsible. The user creates the drug problem in this country because of the demand. It entices people from impoverished areas to sell. Do you think a Frank Lucas would travel to Vietnam to sell something that only made a couple thousand dollars versus the reported 300 million he made? When they busted him, another drug dealer with higher prices and lower quality stepped into his shoes, nothing was solved.
Last edited:
Drug prohibition is just a hustle. Period.
Now that this country is becoming more of a police state they will raise the Pow wow to the rock level, they will never think of abolishing prohibition.
Think of how much money and control over people this "drug war" creates!!!!
The commercials where they give kids drugs for free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What propaganda.
Prohibition of alcohol created rampant corruption and violence.............................
Drug prohibition isnt any different.
Its always about the dollar and if it isnt, its some religious moral bullshit.
Addicts should get double the time the dealers do, flat out, cause dealers replace each other far quicker. Takes alot of shit to get a muthafucka on drugs, takes just trying to put food on table to sell them.
If they just locked up the dope fiends this problem would be done, how would the dealers eat????
But prison is big business, more police, more lawyers, more money in the economy all around.
This whole discussion, though informative, is moot. Until WE, as citizens, hold this adminitration and the B****ES who introduced crack into our black communities to finance the Contras accountable, those who get locked up as a result mean S***!
Oliver North, Cheney and a host of other individuals used the black community as a lab experiment and a secret haven for illegal profit. F*** this quibbling over crack vs. powder charges. Why are we not talking about sentencing those who had the authority to fly the drugs in and coordinate the sytematic destructions of numerous bloodlines and genereations?!?!?!?
THIS IS ONLY A DISTRACTION!!!!!!!!
Oliver North, Cheney and a host of other individuals used the black community as a lab experiment and a secret haven for illegal profit. F*** this quibbling over crack vs. powder charges. Why are we not talking about sentencing those who had the authority to fly the drugs in and coordinate the sytematic destructions of numerous bloodlines and genereations?!?!?!?
THIS IS ONLY A DISTRACTION!!!!!!!!
I am just pointing a inconsistency in how the law is applied as compared to other crimes. I see famous celebrities get busted for drugs, stay at resort treatment center and get almost no time while their drug dealer if busted spends hard time in prison.
I am not advocating stiff prison time, just equal treatment by the law. Because of the lack of wealth and economic opportunities in the black community, we more likely to be on the supply side which hands out stiffer penalties.
The drug user is really conspiring with the drug dealer to obtain narcotics. While people are measuring ounces and complaing about crack vs cocaine qty, it really shouldn't matter. For example, if being busted for pot gets you a $200 ticket, than having 1000 pounds in a van should get you the same type of treatment.
I am not advocating stiff prison time, just equal treatment by the law. Because of the lack of wealth and economic opportunities in the black community, we more likely to be on the supply side which hands out stiffer penalties.
The drug user is really conspiring with the drug dealer to obtain narcotics. While people are measuring ounces and complaing about crack vs cocaine qty, it really shouldn't matter. For example, if being busted for pot gets you a $200 ticket, than having 1000 pounds in a van should get you the same type of treatment.
Last edited:
Watching American Gangster reminded me how heroin devastated the community long before crack did. And how drugs where everywhere at the turn of the 20th century. There was a time the drugstore was a place you could buy coke, heroin, opium, weed and not worry about being busted shit was legal. Coca Cola actually got its name because it contained so much dope it got people addicted. The government knew what it was doing when it turned prohibition into a industry.
From The New York Times
December 10, 2007
Supreme Court Says Crack Sentences Can Be Reduced
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:46 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday said judges may impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine crimes, enhancing judicial discretion to reduce the disparity between sentences for crack and cocaine powder.
By a 7-2 vote, the court said that a 15-year sentence given to Derrick Kimbrough, a black veteran of the 1991 war with Iraq, was acceptable, even though federal sentencing guidelines called for Kimbrough to receive 19 to 22 years.
''In making that determination, the judge may consider the disparity between the guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses,'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion.
The decision was announced ahead of a vote scheduled for Tuesday by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets the guidelines, that could cut prison time for up to an estimated 19,500 federal inmates convicted of crack crimes.
The Sentencing Commission recently changed the guidelines to reduce the disparity in prison time for the two crimes. New guidelines took effect Nov. 1 after Congress took no action to overturn the change. Tuesday's vote is whether to apply the guidelines retroactively.
In a separate sentencing case that did not involve crack cocaine, the court also said judges have discretion to impose more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend.
The cases are the result of a decision three years ago in which the justices ruled that judges need not strictly follow the sentencing guidelines. Instead, appellate courts would review sentences for reasonableness, although the court has since struggled to define what it meant by that term.
The guidelines were established by the Sentencing Commission, at Congress' direction, in the mid-1980s to help produce uniform punishments for similar crimes.
Justice Samuel Alito, who dissented with Justice Clarence Thomas in both cases, said that after Tuesday's decisions, ''Sentencing disparities will gradually increase.''
Kimbrough's case did not present the justices with the ultimate question of the fairness of the disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences. Congress wrote the harsher treatment for crack into a law that sets a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine or 100 times as much cocaine powder. The law also sets maximum terms.
Seventy percent of crack defendants are given the mandatory prison terms.
Kimbrough is among the remaining 30 percent who, under the guidelines, get even more time in prison because they are convicted of trafficking in more than the amount of crack that triggers the minimum sentences.
''A reviewing court could not rationally conclude that it was an abuse of discretion'' to cut four years off the guidelines-recommended sentence for Kimbrough, Ginsburg said.
In the other case, the court, also by a 7-2 vote, upheld a sentence of probation for Brian Gall for his role in a conspiracy to sell 10,000 pills of ecstasy. U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of Des Moines, Iowa, determined that Gall had voluntarily quit selling drugs several years before he was implicated, stopped drinking, graduated from college and built a successful business. The guidelines said Gall should have been sent to prison for 30 to 37 months.
''The sentence imposed by the experienced district judge in this case was reasonable,'' Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens formed the majority in both cases.
The cases are Kimbrough v. U.S., 06-6330, and Gall v. U.S., 06-7949.
December 10, 2007
Supreme Court Says Crack Sentences Can Be Reduced
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:46 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday said judges may impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine crimes, enhancing judicial discretion to reduce the disparity between sentences for crack and cocaine powder.
By a 7-2 vote, the court said that a 15-year sentence given to Derrick Kimbrough, a black veteran of the 1991 war with Iraq, was acceptable, even though federal sentencing guidelines called for Kimbrough to receive 19 to 22 years.
''In making that determination, the judge may consider the disparity between the guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses,'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion.
The decision was announced ahead of a vote scheduled for Tuesday by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets the guidelines, that could cut prison time for up to an estimated 19,500 federal inmates convicted of crack crimes.
The Sentencing Commission recently changed the guidelines to reduce the disparity in prison time for the two crimes. New guidelines took effect Nov. 1 after Congress took no action to overturn the change. Tuesday's vote is whether to apply the guidelines retroactively.
In a separate sentencing case that did not involve crack cocaine, the court also said judges have discretion to impose more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend.
The cases are the result of a decision three years ago in which the justices ruled that judges need not strictly follow the sentencing guidelines. Instead, appellate courts would review sentences for reasonableness, although the court has since struggled to define what it meant by that term.
The guidelines were established by the Sentencing Commission, at Congress' direction, in the mid-1980s to help produce uniform punishments for similar crimes.
Justice Samuel Alito, who dissented with Justice Clarence Thomas in both cases, said that after Tuesday's decisions, ''Sentencing disparities will gradually increase.''
Kimbrough's case did not present the justices with the ultimate question of the fairness of the disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences. Congress wrote the harsher treatment for crack into a law that sets a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine or 100 times as much cocaine powder. The law also sets maximum terms.
Seventy percent of crack defendants are given the mandatory prison terms.
Kimbrough is among the remaining 30 percent who, under the guidelines, get even more time in prison because they are convicted of trafficking in more than the amount of crack that triggers the minimum sentences.
''A reviewing court could not rationally conclude that it was an abuse of discretion'' to cut four years off the guidelines-recommended sentence for Kimbrough, Ginsburg said.
In the other case, the court, also by a 7-2 vote, upheld a sentence of probation for Brian Gall for his role in a conspiracy to sell 10,000 pills of ecstasy. U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of Des Moines, Iowa, determined that Gall had voluntarily quit selling drugs several years before he was implicated, stopped drinking, graduated from college and built a successful business. The guidelines said Gall should have been sent to prison for 30 to 37 months.
''The sentence imposed by the experienced district judge in this case was reasonable,'' Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens formed the majority in both cases.
The cases are Kimbrough v. U.S., 06-6330, and Gall v. U.S., 06-7949.
High Court Eases Crack Sentence Guidelines
Supreme Court Allows Judicial Discretion In Sentencing For Crack Cocaine Crimes
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday -(November 10th 2007)- in a 7 -2 ruling, that federal judges have the discretion to give "reasonably" shorter prison terms for crack-cocaine crimes to reduce the disparity with crimes involving cocaine powder.
...Read the full details using the links below...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/10/scotus.crack.cocaine/?iref=hpmostpop
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/10/supremecourt/main3597693.shtml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1211/p02s01-usju.html
Guess which way ‘Sambo Thomas’ voted on this case
The crack that we know today stemmed form the Iran-Contra Affair. Unless you show me the hard sentencing (without pardons) like the people who are responsible for the introduction of the drugs then it does not matter what the penalties are for either substance - period.
Drug money
See also: CIA and Contra's cocaine trafficking in the US
From the 1980s onward, allegations were made that the Contras were being funded through cocaine distribution.
One of the earliest such allegations was contained in a lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute, alleging that the CIA and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales.[33] The suit was dismissed; several of the named participants subsequently sued the Christic Institute for libel and won.
Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links, which was released on April 13, 1989, concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."[34] The Kerry Committee report further stated that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers."[35] Kerry was suspicious of North's connection with Manuel Noriega, Panama's drug baron. According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Noriega and had met him personally.
The report went on to say that "the Contra drug links included...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." Houses of the Congress began to raise questions about the drug-related allegations associated with the Contras, causing a review in the spring of 1986 of the allegations by the State Department, in conjunction with the Justice Department and relevant U.S. intelligence agencies.[36]
Former DEA agent Celerino Castillo alleged that Ilopango Airport in El Salvador was used by Contras for drug trafficking, with full knowledge of the CIA. He further alleged that his investigations were hindered by US government agencies. These allegations were part of an investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, which however did not find substantial evidence to support Castillo's allegations.[37] Castillo also testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the same allegations.[38]
The allegations resurfaced in 1996 when journalist Gary Webb published reports in the San Jose Mercury News,[39] and later in his book Dark Alliance,[40] detailing how Contras had distributed crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases. These reports were initially attacked by various other newspapers, which attempted to debunk the link, citing official reports that apparently cleared the CIA.
The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997 [41] on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:
At the center of the web of speculation spun around Mena are a few undisputed facts: One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. He was gunned down by Colombian hit men in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986; eight months later, one of his planes—with an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo bay—was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.
In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report[42] that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions.
In 2004, Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head.[43]
[edit] Persons involved pardoned and reinstated
In 1992 U.S. President George H.W. Bush pardoned six people involved in the scandal,[44] namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger.
George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration.[45][46] They include:
Elliott Abrams:[47] under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
Otto Reich:[48] head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
John Negroponte:[49] under Bush, the National Intelligence Director.
Admiral John Poindexter:[50] under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran Contra found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
Robert Gates:[51] under Bush, confirmed on December 6, 2006 as the new Secretary of Defense to replace the resigning Donald Rumsfeld. Served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991–1993 under George H.W. Bush. During Iran Contra he was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
Charles E. Allen:[52] under Bush, appointed in August 2005 to be chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Prior to the DHS appointment, Allen had worked 47 years at the CIA. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation. However coworkers of Allen pointed out that Webster reprimanded the one person in the CIA who had brought his suspicions of a funds diversion to Robert Gates. [Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA, Mark Perry, 1992, p. 216.]
Drug money
See also: CIA and Contra's cocaine trafficking in the US
From the 1980s onward, allegations were made that the Contras were being funded through cocaine distribution.
One of the earliest such allegations was contained in a lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute, alleging that the CIA and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales.[33] The suit was dismissed; several of the named participants subsequently sued the Christic Institute for libel and won.
Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links, which was released on April 13, 1989, concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."[34] The Kerry Committee report further stated that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers."[35] Kerry was suspicious of North's connection with Manuel Noriega, Panama's drug baron. According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Noriega and had met him personally.
The report went on to say that "the Contra drug links included...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." Houses of the Congress began to raise questions about the drug-related allegations associated with the Contras, causing a review in the spring of 1986 of the allegations by the State Department, in conjunction with the Justice Department and relevant U.S. intelligence agencies.[36]
Former DEA agent Celerino Castillo alleged that Ilopango Airport in El Salvador was used by Contras for drug trafficking, with full knowledge of the CIA. He further alleged that his investigations were hindered by US government agencies. These allegations were part of an investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, which however did not find substantial evidence to support Castillo's allegations.[37] Castillo also testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the same allegations.[38]
The allegations resurfaced in 1996 when journalist Gary Webb published reports in the San Jose Mercury News,[39] and later in his book Dark Alliance,[40] detailing how Contras had distributed crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases. These reports were initially attacked by various other newspapers, which attempted to debunk the link, citing official reports that apparently cleared the CIA.
The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997 [41] on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:
At the center of the web of speculation spun around Mena are a few undisputed facts: One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. He was gunned down by Colombian hit men in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986; eight months later, one of his planes—with an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo bay—was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.
In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report[42] that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions.
In 2004, Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head.[43]
[edit] Persons involved pardoned and reinstated
In 1992 U.S. President George H.W. Bush pardoned six people involved in the scandal,[44] namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger.
George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration.[45][46] They include:
Elliott Abrams
:[47] under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned. Otto Reich:[48] head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
John Negroponte:[49] under Bush, the National Intelligence Director.
Admiral John Poindexter:[50] under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran Contra found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
Robert Gates:
[51] under Bush, confirmed on December 6, 2006 as the new Secretary of Defense to replace the resigning Donald Rumsfeld. Served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991–1993 under George H.W. Bush. During Iran Contra he was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. Charles E. Allen:[52] under Bush, appointed in August 2005 to be chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Prior to the DHS appointment, Allen had worked 47 years at the CIA. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation. However coworkers of Allen pointed out that Webster reprimanded the one person in the CIA who had brought his suspicions of a funds diversion to Robert Gates. [Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA, Mark Perry, 1992, p. 216.]
As a recovered addict, I disagree somewhat with what you said. Drugs are inanimate objects, not some nefarious force. Never once has a beer poured itself down my throat, nor has a crack pipe ever lit itself up. I was able to recover as soon as I chose to, although it was a tough choice and even tougher road. With that said, I think that it makes no sense to jail someone just because they are not drinking/smoking/ injecting what you find objectionable, if they steal to support thier addiction, they should bear the consequences.
It's hard to say what the recent results have been. I know it took a while to really get off the ground because the government had a hard time finding eligible volunteers due to a very strict screening process. A person had to be at least 25, addicted to opiates for at least 5 years, injecting for at least one year, failed the methadone program at least twice, not on probation and living downtown (even a junkie like Amy Winehouse wouldn't meet that criteria). Most people meeting that criteria were so poor they were almost impossible to contact. Because of that it still is, as you say, a trial with no results.
I can say that the safe injection sit has been a huge success which has saved hundreds of lives.
Similar threads
