Sentencing Disparities Between Crack Cocaine Term Paper

PAGES
32
WORDS
8900
Cite

The judge must choose a sentence from within the guideline range unless the court identifies an aggravating or mitigating circumstance that was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. In mandatory minimum drug cases, judges can depart only upon motion from the government stating that a defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person. All guideline drug sentences are indirectly affected by the mandatory minimums. The base offense levels are set at guideline ranges slightly higher than the mandatory minimum levels to permit some downward adjustment for defendants who plead guilty or otherwise cooperate with authorities. Most of the specific offense characteristics and general adjustments increase the sentence length, as do all of the adjustments for criminal history. The result is that most drug defendants in federal court receive guideline sentences higher than the applicable statutory mandatory minimum penalty. In 79% of the 1993 crack cases and 71% of the powder cases, the minimum of the guideline range was higher than the applicable statutory mandatory minimum.

An exception to the mandatory minimum drug penalties was created by Congress in 1994 for certain first-time, non-violent, low-level drug offenders.

This exception allows qualified defendants to receive the full benefit of any mitigating guideline adjustments that they would otherwise be precluded from due to the mandatory minimum penalties. Only defendants whose guideline sentence is lower than the mandatory minimum level or who qualify for a downward departure actually benefit from the provision. In the first two months of its implementation, 27 powder cocaine and 13 crack defendants benefited from the provision. This provision became effective September 23, 1994.

As of February 3, 1995, the Sentencing Commission had received and entered into its database 96 cases in which the provision had clearly been applied.

Demographic Profile of Federal Cocaine Offenders

The demographic profile of cocaine offenders must be further examined to analyze any disparity in sentencing. Among crack cocaine cases, only 8.1% were non-U.S. citizens. This contrasts with the higher proportion of aliens for other drugs (powder cocaine 29.7%, heroin 63.0%, marijuana 31.8%, and methamphetamine 9.9%). Within a drug organization, alien status may be associated with the role of mule or courier and the crossing of a U.S. border. Furthermore, most federal drug defendants are male (89.2% of traffickers, 81.4% of possessors), regardless of the type of drug involved.

However, research indicates that crack cocaine trafficking defendants are generally younger, with nearly half (46.9%) less than 26 years old. Crack cocaine defendants are the only drug group with an average age less than 30 years. Approximately half (47.9%) of all drug defendants have not graduated from high school. The percentage of defendants not completing high school is highest among marijuana defendants (53.0%). Crack cocaine trafficking defendants have the lowest rates of college attendance or graduation.

Race is also an important factor that warrants close examination. In 1993, Whites account for 30.8% of all convicted federal drug offenders, Blacks 33.9%, and Hispanics 33.8%. Sentencing patterns for some drugs show high concentrations of a particular racial or ethnic group. Most strikingly, crack cocaine offenders are 88.3% Black. Conversely, methamphetamine offenders are 84.2% White. Powder cocaine cases involve sizable proportions of Whites (32.0%), Blacks (27.4%), and Hispanics (39.3%).

Among defendants convicted of simple possession, 58% of powder defendants were White, 26.7% were Black, and 15% were Hispanic. Among crack defendants, 10.3% were White, 84.5% were Black, and 5.2% were Hispanic.

Findings in a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study, conducted by Douglas McDonald and Kenneth Carlson, suggest that between 1986 and 1990 both the rate and the average length of imprisonment for federal offenders increased for Blacks in comparison to Whites. The researchers concluded that this increase, based on legally relevant offense characteristics, was caused largely by the mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses and more specifically by the 100-to-1 quantity ratio of powder cocaine to crack cocaine.

Operational Assumptions

The...

...

The researchers examined a number of offense- and offender-related characteristics and found that White, Black, and Hispanic crack cocaine traffickers differed in drug amounts, prior record, weapon involvement, trial rates, and charge reductions resulting from pleas. They conclude that within the category of crack cocaine trafficking, differences accounted for all the observed variation in imprisonment sentences.
The study argues that if legislation and guidelines were changed so that crack and powdered cocaine traffickers were sentenced identically for the same weight of cocaine, the Black/White difference in sentences for cocaine trafficking would not only evaporate but would slightly reverse.

From the available research, it appears that the 100-to-1 crack cocaine to powder cocaine quantity ratio is a primary cause of the growing disparity between sentences for Black and White federal defendants. Research has shown that the best way to identify offenders who are most likely to commit new offenses is to focus on their prior criminal record. The sentencing guidelines increase a defendant's sentence based on the seriousness of his/her criminal history to ensure that persons who are a continuing threat to the community are sufficiently punished.

Offenders with zero criminal history points were still successful three years after release 92% of the time. Those with over ten points succeeded only 23% of the time. Among Category I offenders, half the failures were for drug sale or possession, 14% were for property crimes, 12% were for driving while intoxicated, and 6% were for simple assault. For the amount of federal defendants that do not have serious prior criminal records, 62% fall have either no prior record, a single minor offense, or very old convictions. Examination by specific drug type, however, indicates that crack cocaine defendants as a group have more serious records of prior convictions than defendants convicted of other drug offenses. Crack defendants are least likely to have the lowest criminal history score (44.8%) and most likely to score in the career offender range (6.3%).

Research indicates that crack cocaine defendants also are more likely to have a recent criminal record, with 33.7% under a pre-existing criminal justice sentence at the time of their most recent federal offense. Additionally, crack cocaine defendants are most likely (4.2% compared to 1.7% for powder cocaine defendants) to have committed the instant offense within two years of release from imprisonment for a prior offense. Finally, 14.5% of crack cocaine defendants (compared to 6.6% of the powder cocaine defendants) are both under a pre-existing sentence when they commit their offense and commit the new offense within two years of a release for a prior sentence.

Another element of dangerousness includes the involvement of weapons in drug trafficking offenses. Under the guidelines, drug trafficking defendants receive a sentence enhancement if they or someone with them possess a weapon in connection with the offense. The weapon need not be present during the commission of the crime so long as it is in reasonable proximity to the place and time that conduct relevant to the drug trafficking occurred. Some defendants are convicted under 18 U.S.C. 924- which mandates a five-year mandatory consecutive sentence for use of a weapon in relation to a drug offense. Most drug defendants (83.5%) do not receive a weapon adjustment. The guideline weapon enhancement is applied to 13.9% of crack defendants, 13.1% of methamphetamine defendants, and 8.8% of powder offenders.

The geographic scope of activity for crack cocaine cases is largely limited on the local level (76.8%), at a rate nearly twice that of powder cocaine, the drug with the next highest rate (39.0%). For other drugs, approximately 50% or more of defendants were involved in interstate or international drug trafficking activities (powder cocaine 49.4%, heroin 62.8%, marijuana 64.7%). Among cocaine offenders generally, relatively few are classified as high level organizational function roles, 9.2% and 5.5% for powder and crack, respectively. Reflecting international and interstate trafficking patterns, 21.6% of the powder cocaine cases involve mules and couriers. The highest percentage of powder cocaine defendants are mid-level (38.2%), followed by street-level (31.2%). The majority of crack defendants, however, are street-level (59.6%).

Drug quantities specified in the mandatory minimum statutes are incorporated into the system of guidelines offense levels, which are in turn linked to months of imprisonment. First offenders at level 14 are subject to 15-21 months of imprisonment based solely on drug quantity. Under the mandatory minimums and the guidelines, crack possessors are treated the same as crack distributors if they have amounts above the statutory threshold,…

Sources Used in Documents:

Bibliography

Becker, Edward R. 1993. Insuring Reliable Fact Finding in Guidelines Sentencing:

Must the Guarantees of the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses Be Applied?

Cap. L. Rev. 22 (1).

Borman, Paul D., J. 1999. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines. T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 16
Frontline. 2004. Thirty Years of America's Drug War [online]. PBS Frontline; available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/. Internet. Accessed 20 February 2005.
United States Sentencing Commission; available at http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/NEWCRACK;Internet; accessed 20 February
USSC Gov. 2004. Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Federal Sentencing Today online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/chap4.pdf;
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. Federal Cocaine Offenses: An Analysis of Crack and Powder Penalties [online]. U.S. Department of Justice; available from: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/cocaine.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/SIMPLE/sra.htm;Internet; accessed 20
Frontline. 2004. Thirty Years of America's Drug War [online]. PBS Frontline; available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was signed by President Reagan, appropriating $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis. $97 million is allocated to build new prisons, $200 million for drug education and $241 million for treatment. The bill's most consequential action is the creation of mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. Possession of at least one kilogram of heroin or five kilograms of cocaine is punishable by at least ten years in prison. In response to the crack epidemic, the sale of five grams of the drug leads to a mandatory five-year sentence. Mandatory minimums become increasingly criticized over the years for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. Federal Cocaine Offenses: An Analysis of Crack and Powder Penalties [online]. U.S. Department of Justice; available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/cocaine.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. Federal Cocaine Offenses: An Analysis of Crack and Powder Penalties [online]. U.S. Department of Justice; available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/cocaine.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005. The legislative history is ambiguous as to whether Congress intended the penalty structure for crack cocaine offenses to fit within the general two-tiered, five and ten-year penalty structure for serious and major traffickers created by the 1986 Act.
USSC Gov. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: Principal Features [online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/SIMPLE/sra.htm;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005. The principal purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act were: (1) to establish comprehensive and coordinated statutory authority for sentencing (through the sentencing provisions currently found in chapters 227-235 of title 18, United States Code), (2) to address the seemingly intractable problem of unwarranted sentencing disparity and enhance crime control by creating an independent, expert sentencing commission to devise and update periodically a system of mandatory sentencing guidelines, and (3) principally through the sentencing commission, to create a means of assembling and distributing sentencing data, coordinating sentencing research and education, and generally advancing the state of knowledge about criminal behavior
USSC Gov. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: Principal Features [online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/SIMPLE/sra.htm;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. Federal Cocaine Offenses: An Analysis of Crack and Powder Penalties [online]. U.S. Department of Justice; available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/cocaine.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. Federal Cocaine Offenses: An Analysis of Crack and Powder Penalties [online]. U.S. Department of Justice; available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/cocaine.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
USSC Gov. 2004. Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Federal Sentencing Today [online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/chap4.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
USSC Gov. 2004. Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Federal Sentencing Today [online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/chap4.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
USSC Gov. 2004. Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Federal Sentencing Today [online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/chap4.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
USSC Gov. 2004. Racial, Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Federal Sentencing Today [online]. USSC Gov; available at http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/chap4.pdf;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.
Special Report to Congress. 1997. Cocaine and Federal Sentencing policy [online]. United States Sentencing Commission; available at http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/NEWCRACK;Internet; accessed 20 February 2005.


Cite this Document:

"Sentencing Disparities Between Crack Cocaine" (2005, February 21) Retrieved April 16, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/sentencing-disparities-between-crack-cocaine-62359

"Sentencing Disparities Between Crack Cocaine" 21 February 2005. Web.16 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/sentencing-disparities-between-crack-cocaine-62359>

"Sentencing Disparities Between Crack Cocaine", 21 February 2005, Accessed.16 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/sentencing-disparities-between-crack-cocaine-62359

Related Documents

It is a matter of opinion as to whether this is actually accurate, but it does appear to be logical (Payne, 1997). This is an important analogy because of the fact that many individuals who are targeted for a particular reason will often attempt to find a disparity issue that they can use to insist that they have been treated unfairly. In drug use or sale issues, these people are

Henderson notes that "minimal violence is involved with crack cocaine cases -- far less than half of the crack cocaine cases involved a weapon, while most actual violence is associated with the drug trade and not the drug itself." With this knowledge that there is no scientific difference in the dangerousness of the two drugs and that violence is not necessarily associated more with crack cocaine, it becomes clear

Sentence Disparity
PAGES 2 WORDS 539

Sentencing Disparity Preventing Sentence Disparity Ultimately, sentencing disparity is rooted in a combination of how laws are authored and how they are enforced. Such is to say that the approach to sentencing in the United States is not itself racially biased. However, when contextualized by a legal system that is decidedly tilted to the disadvantage of African-Americans, Hispanics and other ethnic minorities, sentencing does take on unequal proportions. The text by Worrall (2008)

"African-Americans now serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months)" (Compendium 2004, 112).The Commission reported in 2004 that "[r]evising the crack cocaine thresholds would better reduce the [sentencing] gap than any other single policy change, and it would dramatically improve the fairness of the federal sentencing system" (USSC 2004, 132). As a result, the African-American

" (Mustard, 2001) I. Drug Sentencing Policy and the New Washington Administration It is stated in the work entitled: "Aspirations and Realism about Drug Sentencing Reform" that disparities in sentencing "continue to plague [the] Criminal Justice System. African-Americans and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Disparities in drug sentencing laws, like the differential treatment of crack as

This suggests that where racial characteristics are invoked during the process of administering criminal justice, it has been done in order to intentionally subject the minority race to some form of unequal treatment based on his or her race. It is this orientation that produces the sociological condition called disparity, particularly legislated policy acts unwittingly on underlying biases. So is this noted by Williams (2009), who points to the disparities