Appeals Court Cuts Crack Sentences

Appeals Court Cuts Crack Sentences May 22, 2013

In 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparity in sentences for crack vs powder cocaine from 100-1 to 18-1. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the new sentencing guidelines applied to cases where the defendant had been convicted before that law was passed but not yet sentenced. Now the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that those sentenced under the old rules must have their sentences reduced as well. The court said:

The old 100-to-1 crack cocaine ratio has led to the mass incarceration of thousands of nonviolent prisoners under a law widely acknowledged as racially discriminatory. There were approximately 30,000 federal prisoners (about 15 percent of all federal prisoners) serving crack cocaine sentences in 2011. Thousands of these prisoners are incarcerated for life or for 20, 10, or 5 years under mandatory minimum crack cocaine sentences imposed prior to the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act. More than 80 percent of federal prisoners serving crack cocaine sentences are black. In fiscal year 2010, before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, almost 4,000 defendants, mainly black, received mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine. […]

The Fair Sentencing Act was a step forward, but it did not finish the job. The racial discrimination continues by virtue of a web of statutes, sentencing guidelines, and court cases that maintain the harsh provisions for those defendants sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act. If we continue now with a construction of the statute that perpetuates the discrimination, there is no longer any defense that the discrimination is unintentional. The discriminatory nature of the old sentencing regime is so obvious that it cannot seriously be argued that race does not play a role in the failure to retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act. A “disparate impact” case now becomes an intentional subjugation or discriminatory purpose case. Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory sentences is a denial of equal protection.

This ruling does not automatically commute the sentences imposed prior to 2010, but it does provide the basis for a new sentencing hearing to bring the sentence in line with the new guidelines. The blatantly racist nature of crack prosecutions (usually in federal court, where the sentences are longer than most state courts) is undeniable. In one California district, of more than 2000 cases of crack prosecutions in federal court, not a single defendant was white.

"Bet they think it is a dirty word."

The Ludicrous Legal Argument of the ..."
"So what is the cost/benefits of immigration?Brookings Institute"

Starnes Wants Refugees Treated Like an ..."
"Jim Wright on Stonekettle Station blog discussing the myth vs reality of the Pilgrim Fathers ..."

Starnes Wants Refugees Treated Like an ..."
"But our posturing boasts about taking in the tired, poor, huddled masses aside--we cannot keep ..."

Starnes Wants Refugees Treated Like an ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • timpayne

    Take away the generous supply of young black men, and the private prison industry will be lobbying hard for a new source of relatively powerless clients. Watch out debtors.

  • Typical Ed Brayton, not thinking of the consequences. You’ll change your mind when these non-violent convicts are released, unleashing a tidal wave of nonviolence on our city streets.

    And, if they’re out, who will man America’s phone centers? Who will make our soldier’s helmets? Who will ensure America’s prison industry maintains its margin? Think of the investors, flopping around on the ground, gasping for dividends!

  • Artor

    Unfortunately, many of these non-violent offenders have now spent years inside the prison system, where one must learn to be a violent motherfucker or get steamrolled by everyone else. When released, they’ll find themselves in a world where 10 or 20 years have gone by, and any marketable skills they had are obsolete. Some of them will find violent crime to be their only option for survival, thus allowing the zero-tolerance crowd to crow, “See! We were right! All them colored folks are just sub-human animals, and they can’t be allowed on the streets with decent (white) people like us!”

  • Sadly, I think Artor’s right, and the zero-tolerance people won’t listen when we point out it was their policies that turned those inmates into hardened criminals.

  • Bronze Dog, to be fair, we can’t release a bunch of guys from Gitmo due to risk of blowback, and they were found innocent (or not charged or charges dropped, etc).

    These crack pushers/possessors here are actually guilty of something.

    That makes them more dangerous than people in Gitmo. True story.