LA Times: Crack Disparity is Unjust

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:18:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Los Angeles Times editorial makes this dubious observation:

The distrust and anger toward the police felt by many African Americans, spotlighted by the recent controversy over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., is partly the result of blatantly discriminatory laws such as the crack disparity.

The crack disparity is the fault of Congress, not the police. Still, the editorial correctly observes that Congress enacted crack cocaine penalties that, in practice if not intent, are blatantly discriminatory. More to the point, federal crack penalties are nonsensical and just plain unfair. That's why TalkLeft has often made the point that Congress should remedy the problem -- and that's why TalkLeft agrees with the editorial that a bill working its way through Congress to do just that should be given a high priority.

< Wrongful Convictions Have an Impact on Victims | Late Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

LA Times: Crack Disparity is Unjust | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

not so dubious (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by souvarine on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:14:03 AM EST

I don't think that those on the receiving end of the disparity make much of a distinction between the cops who enforce the law, the judges who sentence them and the congress that passed the law. The police are the face of a discriminatory justice system, they are stuck with that anger even when the disparity is not their fault.

I'm for legalization of all drugs, (none / 0) (#1)
by bocajeff on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:30:09 PM EST

but when discussing disparity it always seems to be that crack should be lessened to powder. If it was the other way around and the parity of sentencing was lengthened for powder to equal crack then would their be an issue?

I only bring this up because so much time and effort is spent on this micro issues that we tend to lose the bigger picture - freedom in this case - in order to argue about the nonsensical

Nothing Nonsensical (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:43:52 PM EST

About 100 to 1 disparity in sentencing the drug most often used by blacks as opposed to a one hundred times less penalty for the same drug favored by whites.

Ask some black guy who is serving a 10 year mandatory minimum for possessing 50 grams of crack while his more than likely white counterpart may serve no time at all for possessing 50 grams of powder. The white guy only hits the mandatory sentence if he has 5 kilos of powder.

That is hardly a micro issue, unless you like having less black people around or you are interested in permanently reducing the pool of black voters, who are predominantly democrats.


: I'm sure that was Reno's intent (none / 0) (#6)
by Rojas on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:40:39 AM EST

when the clintons fought against amending this nonsense in 94.

Disparity aside, (none / 0) (#4)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:32:40 AM EST

everyone who buys crack, black or white, makes a conscious choice to use an illegal drug. Whenever this topic is discussed, the implication is that we should not punish people who break the law because some other people get off easier for having a different drug. If society's not going to allow people to use whatever drugs they want, then what's the beef? It's illegal. Yes, crack is cheaper than cocaine and life is hard when you're poor, but the bottom line is every single person who chooses to use crack risks getting caught. There are plenty of black and white people who are disadvantaged and who have hard times when young but instead of doing drugs, they struggle and work and keep their lives together and their body clean. Ten years in jail sucks, but there's always a choice to just not do drugs. Let's not lose sight of that choice when we start feeling sorry for someone busted with crack.

Disparity is the issue (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:54:26 AM EST

No one is saying they shouldn't be punished. But crack users/sellers shouldn't be punished more severely than those who use/sell powder. They are the same drug.


The disparity in punishment may be (2.00 / 0) (#7)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:49:08 PM EST

based on the perception that the availability and promotion of crack in inner cities and through gangs is different than that of cocaine. While the psychopharmacological influence may be similar for both forms of cocaine, the concurrent forces (socio-economic, gang distribution, youth access, etc) of many of the users is different. In addition, crack was introduced after cocaine in this country, and the increase of violent crime in the 80's was attributed to it. Hence the disparity in punishment.

Unfortunately, many people are suggesting we reduce crack punishment, not increase the penalties for cocaine to match that of crack.


The increase in violent (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by jondee on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:25:55 PM EST

crime had alot more to do with the loss of decently-paying blue collar jobs and social program cuts. The crack problem is and was just symptomatic and anyone with half-a-brain knows this.

But the trickle-down, demogogic moralizers and tough-on-crime holy warriors realized it was more electoral base and big donor pleasing to build more prisons and persecute (for their moral defiencies), drug users in "our inner cities."


Perception (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by jondee on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:42:14 PM EST

abd the engineering of it, being the key word here.

The "crack problem" was sexy and endless fodder for the grandstanding do-nothings working to appease the lowest common denominator.


Spoken Like A True Drug Warrior (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:50:20 PM EST

Sounds like Giuliani is a big influence of yours.


: More like Tip O'Neal actually (none / 0) (#11)
by Rojas on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:12:09 PM EST

Mr. Eric Sterling:

From 1979 until 1989, I was council to the Judiciary Committee at the US House of Representatives and I was the attorney principally responsible for drugs, as well as gun control, money laundering, organized crime and pornography, among other issues.
In 1986, after Len Bias died (the basketball star who had just signed with the Boston Celtics), the House democrats, led by speaker Tip O'Neal (from Boston), organized an effort to deal with the drug crisis in a 'congress wide' extravaganza and I was the attorney who wrote the mandatory minimums, as well as many other provisions that were included in that 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act .