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.
No comments:
Post a Comment