The intriguing new politics of crack sentencing
As I have highlighted here and here, the political reverberations of the US Sentencing Commission’s new crack work (basics here and here) are hard to predict. Helpfully, Seth Stern has a a great new piece in CQ Today entitled “Momentum Builds for Narrowing Powder, Crack Cocaine Sentencing Gap,” which looks at some of the political dynamics. Here are some interesting excerpts:
African-American lawmakers and liberal groups have long decried the fact that it takes 100 times more powdered cocaine than crack to trigger lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences, a disparity that disproportionately affects minority defendants. A combination of factors — including the Democratic takeover of Congress and growing Republican interest in alternatives to lengthy prison sentences — is helping create momentum for narrowing the differential first enacted 21 years ago….
Last week, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., one of the most conservative members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced plans to introduce legislation that would raise the quantity of crack and lower the quantity of cocaine that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence so that the ratio would be 20-1, rather than 100-1. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, is expected to introduce an alternative that would reduce the ratio to 20-1 by only increasing the crack trigger, an approach favored by liberal groups that don’t want any changes to result in lengthier sentences for cocaine defendants.
While the Senate Judiciary Committee has not settled on a single approach, Hill staffers and lobbyists for several groups expect Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, to introduce legislation in coming weeks that would set the ratio lower than 20-1.
The sticking point may be on the House side, where members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Robert C. Scott, D-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, have long insisted that the triggers for crack and cocaine be equalized. “The facts haven’t changed,” Scott said. “There’s no justification for any differential.” Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., has introduced a bill (HR 460) that would make them equal.
But even if House Democrats compromise, getting a bill passed in that chamber might still be difficult, says one Republican staff member familiar with the issue. “I don’t think the Democrats are going to push this issue coming into 2008 unless they get a lot of Republicans on board, and I don’t think they will,” the staff member said….
The Bush administration has maintained that it prefers to consider the crack-cocaine disparity as part of a broader review of sentencing policy. That would probably include an effort to curb the discretion the Supreme Court gave federal judges when it ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory.
Some related posts on sentencing politics: