|
veggie
Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 17,504
|
High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences
#7739852 - 12/10/07 10:17 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
High Court Eases Crack Sentence Guidelines December 10, 2007 - CNN
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal judges have the discretion to give "reasonably" shorter prison terms for crack-cocaine crimes to reduce the disparity with crimes involving cocaine powder.
The 7-2 ruling represents a victory for lawyers who argued that crack-cocaine offenders were unfairly targeted under U.S. sentencing guidelines.
Current federal penalties for selling 5 grams of crack cocaine can warrant the same prison sentence as dealing 500 grams of the powdered variety.
The case centered around Derrick Kimbrough of Norfolk, Virginia, who according to court records, pleaded guilty to distributing more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Federal sentencing guidelines called for 19 to 22.5 years behind bars. But Judge Raymond Jackson instead gave the defendant a 15-year sentence, calling the case "another example of how crack-cocaine guidelines are driving the offense level to a point higher than is necessary to do justice."
A federal appeals court overturned the case and sent it to a higher court, saying Jackson's discretion was "unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses."
Kimbrough is a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and is African-American.
The issue long has been a source of contention between government prosecutors and civil rights advocates, who argue crack dealers are often targeted for longer prison terms because that drug is prevalent in urban and minority communities, while the powdered version is more commonly associated with higher-income users.
Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took a practical approach, saying it is important to preserve judicial discretion, while ensuring most sentences remain within federal guidelines established two decades ago to ensure a measure of uniformity.
Ginsburg said a federal judge was right to give a crack offender a lesser prison term than the guidelines called for, since federal law "mandates only maximum and minimum sentences," she wrote. "It says nothing about appropriate sentences within those statutory guidelines."
Ginsburg noted the trial judge "honed in on the particular circumstances of Kimbrough's case and accorded weight to the Sentencing Commission's reports showing that the crack/powder disparity yields unjustifiably harsh sentences for crack offenders."
The Sentencing Commission, an independent federal agency that advises all three branches of government on sentences, is expected to make a recommendation at a meeting Tuesday on closing the gap between crack and powder cocaine sentences.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in the Kimbrough case. Thomas said it will now be up to courts "to assume the legislative role of devising a new sentencing scheme," something Congress never intended.
The government had no immediate reaction to the high court's ruling.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission -- an independent federal agency that advises all three branches of government on sentences -- recently cut the gap in recommended prison time for crack-cocaine offenses. The guidelines took effect November 1 after Congress decided not to overturn the changes.
The commission is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to make those guidelines retroactive for prisoners convicted in the past of crack dealing.
Almost 20,000 inmates could be eligible for shorter sentences under the proposed changes.
Congress recently has introduced at least four bills that would reduce the current disparity in cocaine sentences. One widely circulated proposal led by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, would revise the cocaine ratio downward to 20-to-1. That ratio is also supported by the Sentencing Commission.
Harsher sentences for crack offenses came after a social epidemic of crack cocaine began destroying many urban areas in the 1980s.
"The crack-cocaine guidelines were put in place because crack was fueling crime waves across the country, in particular with respect to street violence," said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami who comments on legal matters for CNN. "And it is clear that crack cocaine and white powder cocaine had a very different impact in terms of not only the lives of the users but the impact on the community."
|
shroomgatherer
Connoisseur of the finer things
Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,731
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 4 months, 7 days
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: veggie]
#7740589 - 12/10/07 01:13 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The "High" court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences. That's a great title to the article!!
-------------------- "Let us declare nature to be legitimate. All plants should be declared legal, and all animals for that matter. The notion of illegal plants and animals is obnoxious and ridiculous."
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: shroomgatherer]
#7740667 - 12/10/07 01:31 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm often disapointed in thomas and scalia... they seem to switch between this strict constructionist view of legislation and the constitution and then back when it doesn't please them
edit, I see it was alito instead of scalia, but my criticism still stands
Edited by johnm214 (12/10/07 01:35 PM)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: johnm214]
#7740728 - 12/10/07 01:46 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Nevermind, I actually agree w/ Alito.
I don't get Thomas' dissent though. The guidelines clearly allow room to depart:
"Except as provided in paragraph (2), the court shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the range, referred to in subsection (a)(4) unless the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described. In determining whether a circumstance was adequately taken into consideration, the court shall consider only the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official commentary of the Sentencing Commission. In the absence of an applicable sentencing guideline, the court shall impose an appropriate sentence, having due regard for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)(2). In the absence of an applicable sentencing guideline in the case of an offense other than a petty offense, the court shall also have due regard for the relationship of the sentence imposed to sentences prescribed by guidelines applicable to similar offenses and offenders, and to the applicable policy statements of the Sentencing Commission."
So am I misreading this? Doesn't this allow a judge to depart anyways? They just need to cite the mitigating factor and state why they believe it was not considered by the commision adequatly?
|
Groomies
Ghost
Registered: 08/16/07
Posts: 1,119
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: johnm214]
#7740742 - 12/10/07 01:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
15 years is alot.
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: Groomies]
#7741155 - 12/10/07 03:19 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This is only half of the story. The other half is that SCOTUS also ruled 7-2 that a sentence of probation in an ecstasy case was appropriate even though federal law required minumum mandatory prison sentences.
Quote:
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.
This really is a big win for us.
Edit: In a moment of braindeadness, I thought Stevens was the Chief Justice, corrected to remove said braindeadness from my post.
Edited by pokermush (12/10/07 06:03 PM)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: pokermush]
#7741874 - 12/10/07 05:53 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
stevens isn't the chief, but yah, similar cases
i do think the Booker and progeny seem to ignore the section of the code I posted, though I'm not all that educated on the subject.
It seems I agree w/ the Alito descent in the crack case
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
Re: High court rules on crack, powder cocaine sentences [Re: johnm214]
#7741921 - 12/10/07 06:01 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Oops, you're right, I goofed... busy schedule today.
Thanks for correcting me!
|
|