WASHINGTON, Dec. 10, 2007
High Court Eases Crack Sentence Guidelines
Decision Giving Judges Greater Discretion May Ease Racial Disparity In Cocaine-Fueled Jail Time
-
Play CBS Video Video Disparity In Drug Sentencing The Supreme Court said judges may impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine crimes as opposed to cocaine powder crimes. Wyatt Andrews reports.
-
Advocates for reducing the disparity point to crime statistics that show crack is more of an urban and minority drug while cocaine powder is used more often by the affluent. They say harsher penalties for crack cocaine unfairly punish blacks. (CBS/AP)
-
Interactive The Supreme Court History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
-
Interactive Substance Abuse In America Get the facts on a national problem. Find out where to get help, learn how drugs affect the body and compare state drunk-driving laws.
The crack disparity has long had racial overtones, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. For crack dealers, who are mostly black, 50 grams draws a 10-year minimum sentence. But for powder dealers, who are mostly white, it takes 5 kilos to draw 10 years, a 100-1 difference.
By a 7-2 vote, the court said Monday 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 a separate sentencing case that did not involve crack cocaine, the court also ruled in favor of judicial discretion to impose more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend.
The challenges to criminal sentences center on a judge's discretion to impose a shorter sentence than is called for in guidelines established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, at Congress' direction. The guidelines were adopted in the mid-1980s to help produce uniform punishments for similar crimes.
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.
"The decision is part of a recent trend on the Court - a trend away from rigid sentencing rules and toward giving back to judges some discretion to impose sentences that track the facts of a particular case," says CBS News senior legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "Lower court judges have pushed hard for that wiggle room and the Court once again has obliged."
Quote
Kimbrough's case did not present the justices with the ultimate question of the fairness of the disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences. The ruling does not do away with that enormous discrepancy in sentences for people caught with powder cocaine, who versus those caught with crack cocaine.
senior legal analyst Andrew CohenJudges will have more discretion in an estimated 30 percent of future crack prosecutions, adds Andrews. But the sentencing laws don't change. The basic 100-1 disparity still exists and only Congress can change that.
Seventy percent of crack defendants are given the mandatory prison terms.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said, "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.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"Whatever else it does, the ruling does not do away with that enormous discrepancy in sentences for people caught with powder cocaine versus those caught with crack cocaine," says Cohen. "If that's going to happen, it's going to have to happen in Congress, which created the different sentence maximums in the first place, or through the Sentencing Commission, which already is moving in that direction."
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.
The commission is scheduled to vote Tuesday afternoon on the retroactive application of the crack cocaine guideline amendment that went into effect on Nov. 1. The commission has estimated 19,500 inmates could apply for sentence reductions under the proposal.
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 was reasonable, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. Alito and Thomas again dissented.
Under the decisions in both cases, Alito said, "Sentencing disparities will gradually increase."
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.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Supreme Court
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 49 CommentsWe''re never going to legalize drugs like cocaine & heroin. I don''t see that happening any time soon. Can you imagine politicians voting for that?
Posted by TheGateway1
Probably since a male youth is a "would be man", as a "Black" youth, he was a "would be "Black" man.
A bit verbose, but perfectly understandable...
Posted by SgtRDS''
I wonder if you would share the same sentiment if the crackheads were to move in next door. Then they could tell you that moving them away from your kids is not a criminal issue but a health concern that is already being addressed by them signing up for rehab for the fiftieth time. Of course to you it is irrelevant that these people would literally kill for a $5 rock but meh, health concern. Maybe next time they''ll get your kids. Some folks are better off away from society, the hardcore users are just those folks...
------------------------------------------------------Posted by downtowner97 at 08:15 PM : Dec 10, 2007
...presidential, too. lol
couldn''''t agree more that george w bush is "extraordinarily weak and feeble minded, totally lacking in self respect, and certainly not fit to be a member of society."
Posted by firststate at 10:02 PM : Dec 10, 2007
Not really what I said, however I shall go along with it.
I couldn''t agree more that george w bush is "extraordinarily weak and feeble minded, totally lacking in self respect, and certainly not fit to be a member of society." It was courageous of you to make the statement about all drug users, including him. If only more people felt as you do, he''d have never been elected. It points to the diminishing morality in America that a drug user was elected to that office. His drug use could explain his delusional nature. Remember the public service ads with an egg in a frying pan representing a brain on drugs, apparently in bush''s case the brain damage was irreversible.
Posted by exCoachKen at 07:36 PM : Dec 10, 2007
I agree. Locking people up for non-violent drug offenses is ridiculous. Drug abuse is a public health issue, not a criminal law one. Sentences for hardcore drug use should be to treatment centers, not prisons where drugs are just as easy to get as on the streets.
Punishment for Selling 10 grams of Crack:
White male defendant: 30 days, plus no TV for 60 more days
Hot white woman: Free cosmos for a month + $1000 GC for Victoria''s Secret
Black defendant: Life in Prison.
Do all this, and ya got your crack problem solved.
nggr
whether I am a hyporcrite or not is imaterial
Whether I have in past been one of those I described in my post is also imatterial.
However surely in general what I said is true.
What does a junkie constructively contribute to society.
Nobody made them do it, it was and is solely a decision of their own sick minds.
Posted by rheola at 06:54 PM : Dec 10, 2007
I know your not talkin about Rush.
he''s the man.
I love how he incites hatred in our country.
its awesome, and he gets plastered.
btw-
you or someone you love has never been drunk before?
holy moley!
all us junkies are in awe of your obvious superiority.
its all too apparent that you could have written and recorded the White Album on your lunch break.
ALL HAIL RHEOLA.
AIR-RHEOLA , get it?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by crzmeat at 06:48 PM : Dec 10, 2007
look. its easy,
you snort coke after your morning coffee and pop-tart,
go to work, then smoke crack before your dinner.
coke in the morning, crack at night.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 49 Comments