Families Against Mandatory Minimums(FAMM) is engaged in a letter writing campaign to the United States Sentencing Commission to make its amendment to normalize the sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine retroactive.
Last April, the United States Sentencing Commission discovered that the 100 to 1 disparity between crack cocaine, favored by the poor, minorities and inner city folk, should be changed to mirror the sentencing guidelines for powdered cocaine, favored by whites, the wealthy and celebrities. Better late then never, right?
But these amendments, scheduled to take effect November 1, 2007, have yet to be made retroactive, leaving almost 20,000 people in federal prisons who would otherwise have the opportunity to seek a sentence reduction based upon this change.
The argument in favor of not making the amendments retroactive, I assume, is that the draconian sentencing structure was in force at the time they committed the crime, and enjoying the greatest of legal weapons, the legal fiction, they knew of the harsh penalties and still chose to commit the crime. Clean, simple and ridiculously wrong. (Apologies to Mencken).
To presume that defendants appreciate the nuanced application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and hence flaunted them when committing any crime, no less a drug crime, is just plain silly. Sure, they know it’s illegal. But the actual consequences? Most lawyers couldn’t tell you what they are without looking them up.
The argument for retroactivity is far more compelling, particularly in light of the Sentencing Commission’s conclusions that this disparity is terribly wrong. One could always ponder why it took them forever to realize it, but let’s leave that alone for now. If it is wrong now, it was wrong before. It is a wrong perpetrated by a failed sentencing scheme, then why would they not correct their error for those already subject to a sentence that they now find to be grossly disproportionate?
While we cannot revive a defendant wrongly put to death, we can correct the sentence of prisoners still serving their overlong sentence. To leave someone in prison who, had they been sentenced after an arbitrary date, would have received a substantially different sentence, is unfair, disproportionate and reduces the legitimate purposes of sentencing to a farce.
And before any rugged-individualists get too bent out of shape about it, we are not talking about opening the prison doors so all the crackheads can walk out. They will be resentenced to stiff sentences (including the mandatory minimums that you love so dearly), just not as stiff at the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity would require.
If you support retroactivity, go to the FAMM website and see what you can do to remind the Sentencing Commissioners that the error was theirs, and they have an opportunity to do the right thing.
Last April, the United States Sentencing Commission discovered that the 100 to 1 disparity between crack cocaine, favored by the poor, minorities and inner city folk, should be changed to mirror the sentencing guidelines for powdered cocaine, favored by whites, the wealthy and celebrities. Better late then never, right?
But these amendments, scheduled to take effect November 1, 2007, have yet to be made retroactive, leaving almost 20,000 people in federal prisons who would otherwise have the opportunity to seek a sentence reduction based upon this change.
The argument in favor of not making the amendments retroactive, I assume, is that the draconian sentencing structure was in force at the time they committed the crime, and enjoying the greatest of legal weapons, the legal fiction, they knew of the harsh penalties and still chose to commit the crime. Clean, simple and ridiculously wrong. (Apologies to Mencken).
To presume that defendants appreciate the nuanced application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and hence flaunted them when committing any crime, no less a drug crime, is just plain silly. Sure, they know it’s illegal. But the actual consequences? Most lawyers couldn’t tell you what they are without looking them up.
The argument for retroactivity is far more compelling, particularly in light of the Sentencing Commission’s conclusions that this disparity is terribly wrong. One could always ponder why it took them forever to realize it, but let’s leave that alone for now. If it is wrong now, it was wrong before. It is a wrong perpetrated by a failed sentencing scheme, then why would they not correct their error for those already subject to a sentence that they now find to be grossly disproportionate?
While we cannot revive a defendant wrongly put to death, we can correct the sentence of prisoners still serving their overlong sentence. To leave someone in prison who, had they been sentenced after an arbitrary date, would have received a substantially different sentence, is unfair, disproportionate and reduces the legitimate purposes of sentencing to a farce.
And before any rugged-individualists get too bent out of shape about it, we are not talking about opening the prison doors so all the crackheads can walk out. They will be resentenced to stiff sentences (including the mandatory minimums that you love so dearly), just not as stiff at the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity would require.
If you support retroactivity, go to the FAMM website and see what you can do to remind the Sentencing Commissioners that the error was theirs, and they have an opportunity to do the right thing.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.