More info and some points.
In this story, Ron Paul is ok with it.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to
or
END PRINTPAGE
Crack Cocaine Case Review May Free Inmates
by Brian Mann
November 1, 2011
Across the country on Tuesday, federal judges began reviewing the prison sentences of thousands of men and women jailed on crack cocaine charges. Many inmates could be released or see their sentences sharply reduced.
Congress voted last year to ease federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine. But a decision this summer to revisit old drug cases has sparked new controversy.
Some History
In the 1980s, when the crack epidemic was raging, Congress reacted by setting penalties for crack cocaine that were a hundred times more severe than penalties for cocaine in its powder form. The law swept up thousands of low-level and nonviolent offenders.
Because crack was cheaper and far more pervasive in black neighborhoods, the vast majority of convictions involved African-Americans. Many were locked up for decades.
Hamedah Hasan was a young mother in 1993 when she was sentenced to serve 27 years behind bars after she was caught running errands for a family member who sold drugs.
"My release date from prison is Nov. 18, 2016. I humbly implore you to ask yourself ... if incarcerating a nonviolent first-time offender for 23 1/2 years ... is truly justice served," she said in a video produced by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Critics point out that whites who generally used or sold powder cocaine drew far shorter sentences.
Last year, Congress passed a bill easing crack sentences. The bill had mostly Democratic support, but was backed by Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who argued on the House floor that the original laws were designed to clean up drug-wracked inner-city neighborhoods.
"It turned out that it backfired. It actually hurt minorities. It didn't help them, and here we are trying to correct this disparity," Paul said.
The Fair Sentencing Act affects all future crack cocaine convictions. But over the summer, the United States Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to make the new crack guidelines retroactive.
So beginning Tuesday, as many as 12,000 people like Hasan are eligible to request that their prison sentences be sharply reduced.
"For the past 25 years, the 100-to-1 crack/powder disparity has spawned clouds of controversy and an aura of unfairness that has shrouded nearly every federal crack cocaine sentence that was handed down pursuant to that law. I say justice demands this result," said Ketanji Brown Jackson, vice chairwoman of the sentencing commission, after the decision was made.
Taking Hits
The decision to make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive drew fire from members of Congress who blasted the sentencing commission, accusing the panel of overstepping its authority. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith - a Republican from Texas - opposed easing crack sentencing guidelines for new offenders, as well.
"This bill reduces the penalties for crack cocaine. Why would we want to do that? We should not ignore the severity of crack addiction or ignore the differences between crack and powder cocaine trafficking. We should worry more about the victims than about the criminals," Smith said on the House floor last year.
Prison reform advocates are also unhappy with the Fair Sentencing Act and say it didn't go far enough.
Jesselyn McCurdy with the American Civil Liberties Union points out that mandatory sentences for crack are still 18 times more severe than guidelines set for powder cocaine.
"This is an incremental step in trying to address the disparity, but we think the only fair way to treat these two drugs is to treat them and punish them in the same manner," says McCurdy.
Federal judges will now decide case by case whether shorter sentences are appropriate and whether early release could pose a risk for public safety. That means communities won't see thousands of men and women imprisoned during the crack epidemic arriving home all at once.
----------------------
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to
or
END PRINTPAGE
From an interview:
Attorney General ERIC HOLDER (Department of Justice):
HOLDER: We believe that certain dangerous offenders, including those who possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes and those who have very significant criminal histories, should be categorically prohibited from receiving the benefits of retroactivity.
JOHNSON: So people who had guns in their homes and people with long criminal records would not be eligible for early release under the Justice Department plan. Critics say that would bar the door to well over half of the 12,000 people who might benefit from the change.
JOHNSON: The change could save a lot of money. It costs about $26,000 a year to house an inmate in federal prison.
David Hiller doesn't have a lot of sympathy.
Chief DAVID HILLER (Grosse Pointe Park, Detroit): You broke the law, you got sentenced, you took your lumps, do your time.
JOHNSON: Hiller is a police chief in a Detroit suburb. He and state prosecutors pointed out that more than 90 percent of cocaine offenders behind bars pleaded guilty, bargaining down the number of criminal charges they faced. They say that makes it unfair to change the terms of plea deals years after they were signed.
------------------------
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!! You need to
or
END PRINTPAGE
More points, from another interview:
Christopher Chiles is the Chairman of the board for the National District Attorneys Association.
CHILES: First of all, there has to be finality. And again, many of these people also committed other crimes and they are often crimes which had victims - burglaries, aggravated robberies, different things like that. Those victims deserve some finality. They deserve to know that the sentence was imposed and that it's going to stay. Additionally, you have to keep in mind, state and local prosecutors across this country, prosecute between 95 and 97 percent of all the criminal cases in this country.
So, only a very small percentage are even prosecuted in federal court. Those that go into federal court are there because they've earned their way there. The average age of these people is over 30 years of age. These are not 18- and 19-year-old kids who made a mistake. These are people who are old enough to know better, should have known better, and they had prior convictions.
Michael Nachmanoff is a public defender in Virginia
NACHMANOFF: This is about remedying one of the worst stains in the criminal justice system and allowing these people to get out of jail just a little bit earlier. This is not a question about letting the doors of the jail open and allowing people to go free. These individuals will have served on average at least 10 years in prison, if not longer. And their sentences are now going to be lowered on average somewhere in the order of one, two, maybe three years at the most.
NACHMANOFF: Yes. I respectfully disagree that the process at the time was fair. And everyone from the president of the United States on down now recognizes that the rules under which those plea negotiations took place and those trials took place were unfair. Defendants had their hands tied and prosecutors had their hands tied, often knowing that the sentences that they were going to be seeking were too harsh.