President Barack Obama recently signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, reducing the disparities between the minimum criminal penalties for possession of crack and those for powdered cocaine. The bill had broad bi-partisan Congressional support and shifted the egregious  "100-to-1" ratio between crack and powder cocaine into a fairer, but still lopsided 18-to-1 ratio. Until now, possession of 5 grams of crack triggered a mandatory five-year federal prison term, whereas it would take 500 grams of powdered cocaine to earn the same sentence. So, someone busted with a crack rock in his pocket weighing about as much as a nickel would do more time than a mid-level dealer with a pound of cocaine in a briefcase.

 

The imbalance came about in the 1980's as panicked lawmakers argued that crack was more addictive, more dangerous and fueled more violence than powdered cocaine. We know now - and probably knew then -  that there was no scientific or public health basis for the differential approach. The implications of the policy, however, become clear when considering that more than 80 percent of defendants sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were African Americans.

 

We've made the law fairer - 82% fairer to be exact - which coincidentally, is the same percentage of addicted men and women nationwide who in 2007, said they needed treatment and didn't get it. That figure, gleaned from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, has likely grown in the last three years given government budget cuts and increased drug and alcohol use.

 

Making jail sentences fair is a step in the right direction, but is that really the best we can do? How about we address the underlying injustices that fuel substance abuse in our communities? How about we eliminate the stigma associated with addiction and treat it as a public health problem? And how about we work to make sure that 100% of those who need treatment get it before they ever see the inside of a jail cell? 

 

 

Sincerely,