The US Senate approved on a voice vote Wednesday a bill that would reduce, but not eliminate, the disparity in sentences handed down to people convicted of crack versus powder cocaine charges.

The US Senate approved on a voice vote Wednesday a bill that would reduce, but not eliminate, the disparity in sentences handed down to people convicted of crack versus powder cocaine charges. The bill championed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), SB 1789 would reduce the current, much maligned, 100:1 ratio to 18:1.

Under current law, it takes only five grams of crack cocaine to earn a mandatory minimum five-year federal prison sentence, but 500 grams of powder cocaine to garner the same sentence. The law has been especially devastating in black communities, which make up about 30% of all crack consumers, but account for more than 80% of all federal crack prosecutions. Under the bill passes by the Senate, it would now take an ounce of crack for the mandatory minimums to kick in.

Durbin's bill originally called for completely eliminating the sentencing disparity, but was stalled until a Senate gym meeting between Durbin and opposition Judiciary Committee heavy-hitters Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). After that informal confab, the bill was amended to 18:1 and passed unanimously last week by the committee.

A bill in the House by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) that would completely eliminate the disparity by the simple act of eliminating all references to crack in the federal statute, HR 3245, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee last July, but has not come to a floor vote. Now that the Senate has approved its bill, pressure will be on the House to just approve the Senate version.

Sen. Durbin told the Associated Press that while he had originally sought to completely eliminate the disparity, the final bill was a good compromise. "If this bill is enacted into law, it will immediately ensure that every year, thousands of people are treated more fairly in our criminal justice system," he said.

Durbin added that the harsher treatment of crack offenders combined with federal prosecutors' predilection for disproportionately going after black crack offenders had eroded respect for the law. "Law enforcement experts say that the crack-powder disparity undermines trust in the criminal justice system, especially in the African-American community."

But drug reformers and civil rights groups that had pushed for complete elimination of the sentencing disparity had a definitely mixed reaction to the Senate vote. It was progress, but not enough, they said.

"We strongly supported Sen. Durbin's bill, which would have completely eliminated the disparity," said Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Council for Civil and Human Rights in a statement Wednesday. Adding that the group was "disappointed" that disparities remain, Henderson said that "this legislation represents progress, but not the end of the fight."

"Today is a bittersweet day," said Jasmine Tyler of the Drug Policy Alliance in a Wednesday statement. "On one hand, we’ve moved the issue of disparate sentencing for two forms of the same drug forward, restoring some integrity to our criminal justice system. But, on the other hand, the Senate, by reducing the 100:1 disparity to 18:1, instead of eliminating it, has proven how difficult it is to ensure racial justice, even in 2010."

The US Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday unanimously approved a bill that would reduce -- but not eliminate -- the disparity in sentencing for federal crack and powder cocaine offenses.

Bryan Epis, the first California medical marijuana provider to be prosecuted and convicted for growing marijuana for patients, was sent back to federal prison Monday by a federal judge in Sacrament

The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday approved Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 on a unanimous voice vote Thursday.

In a political maneuver designed to shield his embattled Conservative government from criticism during the upcoming Winter Olympics in Vancouver,

• read full post
• 2 comments

With a 46-30 vote Thursday, the New Jersey Assembly gave final approval to a bill that will end mandatory minimum sentences for some "drug free zone" drug offenses.

In a political maneuver designed to shield his embattled Conservative government from criticism during the upcoming Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wednesday "prorogued," or shut down, parliament until a new session begins in March. The move kills all pending legislation, including a Tory "tough on crime" bill, C-15, that included mandatory minimum nine-month prison sentences for growing as much as a single marijuana plant.

Prorouging parliament is not a routine move, but this is the second time Harper has done it in a year. Last December, he did it to head off a looming vote of no-confidence, with a coalition of New Democrats, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois looking to replace his Conservative government. Now, he says he is doing it to introduce a new budget, but the maneuver also kills all parliamentary committees, including one looking into allegations Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan turned detainees over to Afghan authorities who abused them. That inquiry has raised embarrassing questions about Canada's policies in Afghanistan.

To the relief of drug reform advocates and Canada's cannabis culture, the move kills a bill that was very harsh and very near to passage. Under the provisions of C-15 as passed by the House, people growing between one and 200 marijuana plants faced a minimum of six months if the "offense is committed for the purpose of trafficking." That would rise to nine months if it were a rental property, if children were endangered, or if the grow presented a public safety threat, i.e. was stealing electricity.

The bill mandated a one-year minimum for between 201 and 500 plants or for producing hashish and two years for more than 500 plants. It also had one-year minimums for importing or exporting marijuana and for trafficking more than three kilograms if it was for the benefit of "organized crime," there was threat or use of violence or weapons, or if the offender had a serious previous drug offense. The trafficking minimum jumped to two years if it occurred in a prison, if the trafficking was to a minor, or if it was "in or near a school, in or near an area normally frequented by youth or in the presence of youth."

The bill had been amended earlier this month by the Senate Constitutional Affairs and Legal Committee to remove the mandatory minimum provisions for under 201 plants, but only if the grows were not in residential areas and owned by the grower. That meant anyone growing in a residential neighborhood or in a rental property still faced a nine-month minimum, limiting relief to rural home-owners.

The bill awaited only a final vote in the Senate. Now, Harper has sacrificed it on the altar of his political calculations.

But like a vampire, C-15 is likely to rise from the grave. It has been a central plank in Harper's appeals to his law-and-order constituencies, and his government is almost certain to reintroduce it when the new session begins in March, or after he calls snap elections, which the Conservatives seem well-positioned to win as their main rivals, the Liberals, flounder.

Don't put away those wooden stakes just yet.

As 2009 prepares to become history, we look back at the past year's domestic drug policy developments.

As of last week, Rhode Island sentencing reforms that eliminate mandatory minimums for drug offenses have taken effect.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 18, 2009
CONTACT: Tony Newman at 646-335-5384 or Roseanne Scotti at 609-610-8243

NJ Senate Judiciary Committee to Vote Monday on Groundbreaking Sentencing Bill that Would Give Judges the Discretion to Waive Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Some Nonviolent Drug Offenses

Advocates Commend Legislation as Common-Sense and Reasonable Reform that Would Increase Fair and Effective Sentencing and Save Taxpayer Money

On Monday, November 23, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Senate Bill 1866, which would give judges the discretion to waive mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent drug offenses. The Assembly passed the companion legislation, A2762, last year and Gov. Jon Corzine has said he will sign the bill when it gets to his desk. This critically important legislation would be a groundbreaking first step in reforming New Jersey’s draconian sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenses.

Roseanne Scotti, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey, applauded the committee’s willingness to consider the bill and urged passage.

“Twenty years ago, New Jersey began implementing harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. These laws have been a spectacular failure. They have done nothing to decrease drug activity and have filled New Jersey’s prisons with nonviolent drug offenders at great cost to New Jersey taxpayers,” said Scotti.

It costs New Jersey taxpayers more than $46,000 a year to incarcerate an individual and New Jersey spends about $331 million a year just to incarcerate nonviolent drug offenders. Allowing judges some discretion would guarantee that justice is done and that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. At a time when New Jersey is facing serious budget deficits and cutting spending on education, health and other critical programs, advocates say New Jersey needs to take a hard look at policies that have mandated the warehousing of large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders at enormous cost to taxpayers.

S1866/A2762 is supported by a broad coalition of organizations including Volunteers of American Delaware Valley, Corporation for Supportive Housing, New Jersey Association on Correction, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Coalition of Community Corrections Providers of New Jersey, Women Who Never Give Up, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Hispanic Directors Association and Latino Leadership Alliance. Recently, both the Newark and Camden City Councils passed resolutions supporting S1866.

When New Jersey adopted the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act in 1986, the state ushered in a radical era of harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. This led to unprecedented levels of incarceration and massive taxpayer expenditures. These unfair and ineffective laws have also had an egregiously disproportionate impact on communities of color.

• In 1987, only 11 percent of the New Jersey prison population was incarcerated for drug offenses. Today, 29 percent of the prison population is incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses.
• Twenty years ago, only 11 percent of individuals in prison were serving mandatory minimum sentences—today 69 percent are serving mandatory terms.
• In the last twenty years, New Jersey’s Corrections budget has risen from $289 million to $1.3 billion.
• New Jersey spends $331 million a year to incarcerate individuals for nonviolent drug offenses.
• The budget for corrections has grown by a factor of 13 while the overall budget grew only by a factor of six.
• In the 1980s and 1990s, the Corrections budget grew at three times the rate of the budget for education.
• Although African Americans and Latinos account for just 27 percent of the population of New Jersey, they represent 81 percent of the prison population.

# # #

The US Sentencing Commission has been ordered by Congress to review mandatory minimum sentencing.

Dear Friend,

Today the United States Sentencing Commission will be meeting in Washington, D.C. to establish its priorities for the 2009-2010 program year. In preparation for this meeting, the Commission has invited interested parties to recommend areas of focus on federal sentencing policy. On August 5, The Sentencing Project submitted a letter to the Commission highlighting four areas of attention. Our recommended issue areas are the following:

1. Prepare a Report for Congress on the Impact of Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences - The last substantial report produced on mandatory sentencing is now nearly 20 years old. We recommend a fresh examination of these issues, including the impact of mandatory sentencing on public safety and racial disparity, and the utility of the federal "safety valve" sentencing provision.

2. Continue Recent Activity in the Area of Cocaine Sentencing Policy - The Commission should continue to play an active role in Congressional deliberations regarding changes in the penalty structure for crack and powder cocaine sentencing.

3. Prepare a Report for Congress on Alternatives to Incarceration - Building on evidence that alternatives are underutilized in the federal system, particularly for drug offenses, the Commission should examine options for expansion of alternatives and guidelines restrictions that need to be reconsidered.

4. Examine the Impact of Time Served in Prison on Crime, Costs, and Disparity - Between 1993 and 2006 time served in prison for federal offenses increased by 44%. The Commission should examine these changes to assess their value and cost regarding public safety outcomes.
We hope you find these recommendations useful in your work, and we will keep you posted regarding the priorities established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

-The Sentencing Project

A court in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, has sentenced a young woman to life in prison for selling a joint to an undercover officer and possessing 16 more weighing a total of 19 grams.

An end to the notorious sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine may be in sight.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the gap in sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses must go.

From the 1970s until 2000, anyone caught possessing, distributing, or producing heroin in Louisiana was eligible for a prison sentence of life without parole.

A federal judge in Los Angeles sentenced Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary operator Charles Lynch to a year and a day in federal prison

The Canadian House of Commons today passed the Conservative government of Prime Minister Steven Harper' C-15 crime bill, which will institute mandatory minimum sentencing for some marijuana and other drug offenses. The vote, in which after dilly-dallying for days, the opposition Liberals joined in, came despite hearings in which no witnesses favored such a tough on crime approach north of the border.

It's not a done deal yet. The bill must still be approved by the Canadian Senate, which issued a report several years ago calling for the government to head in the opposite directoin. But the Senate, which is appointed, is not known for bucking the government and the House of Commons.

That the Liberals buckled for fear of being "soft on crime" and supported the Conservatives in this giant step backward is disappointing but not surprising. Oh, Canada! Once we looked to you for a progressive example on drug policy.

I will be writing about all this for the Chronicle later this week, as well as focusing on our other border with a feature article on the Obama administration's new initiative to thwart the Mexican so-called drug cartels.

Congressional Black Caucus Justice and Civil Rights Taskforce and Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School presents Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy: 25th Annive