Disparities in Crack/Powder Crime

The disparities in the amount of blacks and minorities convicted of drug-related crimes is disproportionally high to the amount of whites convicted of drug-related crimes. These government policies toward crack and powder cocaine. The federal sentencing guideline for punishing someone selling five grams of crack receiving the same sentence as a powder cocaine dealer selling 500 grams is a policy that, when looked at closely, has validity and racial implications at the same time. While this policy used to hold a small bit of validity, it has undoubtedly led to disproportionately high percentages of blacks being convicted of drug-related offenses.

When the 100 to 1 law was passed, lawmakers believed that crack was much more addictive than powder cocaine. It was believed that users would become so addicted that they would commit homicide and robbery in order to get more crack to feed their addiction. They are not necessarily punishing people for taking drugs; they are punishing them for activities that lead to gang violence, murders and other violent crimes that you do not see nearly as much over other drugs. That being said, a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the physiological and psychoactive effects of crack and powder cocaine are similar.

The 100:1 policy has irrefutably led to a disparity in the amount of blacks sentenced to drug related charges compared to whites. In 1992, it was estimated by the U.S. sentencing commission that 65 percent of crack users were white; however, 93 percent of those convicted for crack related crimes were black. As a result of crack users receiving longer sentences than powder users, more people who use crack are incarcerated because of the lower turnover of inmates. Looking at crack users, because crack is cheaper than coke, more people with lower incomes who live in the inner city are users of crack. Because people with low incomes in inner cities using crack more, police have disproportionately targeted low-income communities for many reasons. Conducting arrests in the inner city are easier because most users are on the street, whereas more wealthy users are behind closed-doors in the suburbs. Additionally, because inner-city drug activity happens openly on the streets, they bring attention to themselves that may cause concerned neighbors to notify the authorities.

One would think that prosecuting powder cocaine more strictly would lead to less use of crack. Treating the causes rather than the symptoms is a more efficient way of solving a problem. Putting users of crack in jail does not solve the problem of crack usage in the inner cities, and all the violence associated with it. The current policy maintains the cycle of disabling young black men’s opportunities form becoming productive members of society because it is much harder to find a job with a criminal record. If they cannot find jobs to provide for their families, they must find other means to make money, which may ironically involve the drug market. As can be seen, current policy seems to support a cycle of drug use in the inner city.

If there were a way to remove or reduce the amount of powder cocaine from the drug market, there would be less crack on the market. Less crack available would mean a reduction in the use of crack everywhere, including the inner cities. With less crack on the market, there would be far fewer opportunities to make money by selling crack, and also crack usage would be forced to decline. A way to reduce the amount of powder would be to impose harsher penalties on those dealing with powder. This would be a way of systematically reducing the root cause of crack use in the inner cities. Taking the decision of whether to use crack or not out of potential users’ hands is a very effective way of curtailing use because once someone is addicted to crack, curing their addiction is arduous task.

There are signs of hope for evening out the 100:1 policy and the racial disparities associated with it. In April 2009, the Obama Administration urged Congress to close the gap in prison sentences given to those convicted of dealing crack versus powdered cocaine. In response to Obama’s recommendations, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2009, which would treat crack and powder cocaine the same. Additionally, On March 11, 2010, The Senate approved a bill that would reduce the cocaine sentencing disparity from its current 100 to 1 quantity ratio to a level of 18 to 1. These actions are a huge step in the right direction toward eliminating racial disparities of those convicted of crack related crimes: however, there will still be racial disparities until the policy shifts to a 1 to 1 ratio in sentencing crack and powder cocaine offenses.

Disparity with in Incarceration of the African American Community

There indeed is a disparity when it comes to the incarceration of blacks compared to the white population in America. Black offenders are more likely to become arrested, to be found guilty, and to receive harsher sentences than white offenders with in America. But as David Cole goes into offering facts to support the statements above one has to think about the possibility of disproportionate use of drugs. The stereotypic idea that African Americans use and sell more drugs than whites. While still upholding equal enforcement there will be a result in disproportionate incarcerations of African Americans. Although Cole claims there isn’t significant evidence to support this, but one can also go on to think about the consequences of this disparity. That African Americans’ drug use and incarcerations will disable them from finding legitimate jobs and thus further forcing them to a life in a low income career or no career at all. I think the true devastating aspect of this situation is that the disparity continues from generation to generation which constantly strengthens the sense of hopelessness within the African American community.

Another significant topic to be discussed in regards to incarceration is the presence of the three-strike rule with in our criminal justice system. As known by many the purpose of the law is to incapacitate those who would repeatedly cause harm towards society. Yet this rule has been witnessed to incarcerate criminal’s whose third strike was simply a nonviolent crime. The noticeable increase in expenses with in our criminal justice system may be attributed to the use of this three-strike rule. Upon reviewing multiple online sources I had found that since the three-strike policy has been implemented the cost of incarcerating offenders in our prisons has went up by more than 100%. Our prisons will continue to be overcrowded and by placing third strike criminals back into our prisons is just worsening the situation. For the most part, as David Cole agrees, third strike criminals typically go through a very violent phase during their life, but that then fades and they seem to no longer pose as a threat to society. Many who support the policy simply offer the most logical argument that these people are criminals and breaking the law is breaking the law. Yet although this is true I have to push the thought for change due to that the policy impacts our society in more of a negative way than positive. As one can see the three-strike rule amplifies the disparity among incarceration rates of African Americans compared to whites.

The amplification of this disparity can be witnessed with in the inner cities where the density of the African American population is highest in comparison to suburban areas. Simply one can think about how inner city life may consist of stealing or other minor nonviolent crimes to obtain necessities such as food and water. Yet this is where the disparity comes in due to that these crimes, that are deemed harmless to society, may be the third strike for those committing them. This situation diminishes all hope for those in the African American community and places extreme amounts of stress on choosing between survival or the risk of becoming incarcerated. The disparity among incarceration rates between African Americans and whites due to the third strike rule and drug use will continue to drag the African American community into the depths hopelessness. Thus emphasis should and hopefully will be put on changes towards the third strike rule and implementation of changes to drug use policies. With such changes will also allow for a decrease in the amount spent on incarceration and that money can be spent towards education and improving life conditions with in the African American community.

Redistributing the wealth to close the inequality gap.

The redistribution of wealth is at almost every debate in politics. The democrats and republicans are always at odds with each other over this issue. Essentially the democrats think that rising taxes to pay for different programs to help the lower income families is a way to redistribute the wealth in this country. On the other hand the republicans argue that raising taxes creates economic hardship.

The observations of sociologists show that there is still a large gap in class in this country. Even a deeper observation of sociologists is that race and class work together to perpetuate inequality. The average black household makes 59 cents to the average white household (Shapiro, RCL); the problem of inequality in this country, and around the world is very complex, and coming up with a long term solution is vital in order to solve this problem.

One solution to this problem is to redistribute the wealth. “Family wealth is crucial to opportunities and success in a way that allows families to launch their own social mobility in a self-reliant and independent manner” (Shapiro RCL). Wealth is a great advantage to have, it allows for people to get an education, have better healthcare, and overall more opportunities to gain more wealth throughout their lives. It is like the cliché the rich keep getting richer; which implies that the gap between the poor and rich is growing at an exponentially greater rate.

I believe that redistributing the wealth would help solve the inequality problems in this county, but if done incorrectly it would just be a short term solution. For example let say that the government decided to tax the rich excessively such that there was virtually no gap in wealth. Everyone would have the same opportunities now to get an education and become more wealth. However, over time the same gap between the wealthy and poor would develop and we would be back to square one again. I believe that this gap between the rich and the poor will always exist in a free market, but there are ways to ensure that this gap is controlled.

There are programs such as welfare that work at controlling the inequality gap but the momentum of inequality is still not being controlled. People and races get into a rut and once you are in this rut it is very difficult to get out of it. The problem is further complicated by the opposing cultures; which creates the street mentality attitude. In order to find a long term solution one must break the vicious cycle that is presently the current way of life.

I think the best long term solution that can break this cycle is supplementing education. The government already does this by providing public schools, but if you look at inner city school they are well underfunded. Raising taxes to create more money for education is essential in order to help close the inequality gap. I believe that every one should at least get a chance to go to college as well as well. Providing more people the opportunity to afford to go to college also will redistribute wealth in the long term. Ultimately creating a stronger education system will close the inequality gap by providing opportunities for people to climb out of the inequality rut, and it will improve the economy in the long term.