Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee this year that would change mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses. The legislation, known as the Justice Safety Valve Act, gives judges much greater flexibility in criminal sentencing for drug offenses. This flexibility could combat the inefficiency, unfairness, and discriminatory quality that characterizes the current drug sentencing system.
An article last month in Forbes illustrated the injustice of mandatory minimums with striking anecdotes:
Other examples of draconian mandatory minimums mentioned at the hearing included a 10-year sentence received by an 18-year-old first-time offender caught with less than two ounces of cocaine, a 22-year sentence received by an 24-year-old woman who sold 13.9 grams of crack to a police informant, and a 25-year sentence received by a 46-year-old father of three who sold some of his painkillers to someone he thought was his friend. Tolman noted that providing useful information to the government is often the only way to escape mandatory minimums, which are based almost exclusively on drug weight, with the result that drug dealers are treated more leniently than their girlfriends and low-level employees.
These examples show how unjust and fiscally inefficient mandatory minimums can be. Sentencing guidelines put people in prison for a gratuitous amount of time, which costs the taxpayers immensely with no tangible social benefit. Repealing minimum sentencing would allow judges to choose punishment that fits the crime and give less prison time to non-violent offenders. As Attorney General Eric Holder explained, “Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason.” In addition to being unfair and wasteful, there is a racially discriminatory aspect to mandatory minimum sentencing that deserves attention.
Both crack cocaine and powder cocaine are subject to federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, but these guidelines affect blacks and whites differently. There is a massive racial divide between crack and cocaine users; in fact, about 80 percent of crack cocaine users are black while 60 percent of powder cocaine users are white. Neither crack nor powder cocaine is more dangerous however, as both drugs are pharmacologically identical.
The first mandatory minimums were established with a 100:1 sentencing ratio of crack vs. powder cocaine. This meant that a gram of crack yielded punishment equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine. In addition, possessing 28 grams or more of crack is a guaranteed sentence of at least five years in prison. For powder cocaine, it would take 500 grams, or half a kilo, which costs approximately $30,000 and weighs over one pound, to receive a five-year guaranteed sentence. Since crack users are predominantly black and powder users mostly white, many African-Americans were receiving prison sentences that were unjustifiably longer.
The cocaine sentencing ratio was changed in 2010 to 18:1 by the Fair Sentencing Act, which made possession of five grams of crack cocaine equivalent to 90 grams of powder. This legislation, however, did not eliminate the disparities between penalties for white and black offenders. While steps have been taken in the right direction, the passage of the Justice Safety Valve Act is an opportunity to finally correct the obvious injustice of mandatory minimums. In a time of government austerity, repealing mandatory minimums would be warranted simply because of the economic benefit. However, the human cost of sentencing restrictions may be an even more compelling reason to change minimum sentencing practices than the economic cost.
Photo credit: Associated Press
