The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that puts cocaine sentencing laws in the spotlight. At the center is the trial of Derrick Kimbrough, a black veteran of the first Iraq war, who was busted for dealing both crack and powder cocaine. At the trial, the judge sentenced him to 15 years, and would have sentenced him to less if he had been able to avoid certain mandatory sentences; however, this was several years short of the 19 year minimum he was supposed to impose, so the government appealed. Because, you know, those extra four years are when the rehabilitation was actually scheduled. Or something.
At Kimbrough's sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson said the higher range was "ridiculous."
"This case is another example of how the crack cocaine guidelines are driving the offense level to a point higher than is necessary to do justice in this case," Jackson said.
The judge said the 15-year sentence "is clearly long enough under the circumstances. As a matter of fact, it's the court's view that it's too long, but the court is bound by the mandatory minimums of 10 years on three of these counts."
The government appealed the sentence. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said judges are not free to impose sentences shorter than the guidelines "based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses."
Well, it's going to the Supreme Court now, where they'll take a look at some unpleasant facts, notably that the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine are considerably harsher than for powder cocaine; crack is primarily an urban drug used by minorities; consequently four fifths of crack cocaine convictions affect blacks, while only a quarter of those convicted for powder cocaine are black; however, the punishment for crack cocaine is an order of magnitude more harsh than similar punishment for power cocaine.
The issue grew out of a 1986 law that was passed in response to violent crimes committed to get money to feed crack habits. The law includes what critics have called the 100-to-1 disparity: Trafficking in 5 grams of [crack] cocaine carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence, but it takes 500 grams of cocaine powder to warrant the same sentence.
Things are starting to get better in some ways:
The sentencing commission, an independent agency within the U.S. judiciary, voted last month to reduce the recommended sentencing ranges for people convicted of crack possession, a step toward lessening the disparity. The recommendation will become effective Nov. 1 unless Congress acts.
At the same time, the commission urged Congress to repeal the mandatory prison term for simple possession and increase the amount of crack required to trigger obligatory five-year or more prison terms as a way to focus on major drug traffickers.
We'll see what happens. I'm not enough of a Supreme Court junkie to be able to predict the outcome of the case; anyone have any insights?
