In what was called the Fair Sentencing Act, Congress reduced the glaring disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. But they failed to make it retroactive to apply to those who where previously convicted, but not yet sentenced. Now, judges are being forced to sentence defendants under the old and horribly skewed law despite the general recognition that such law was completely unjust. But, they aren’t doing it without voicing their opinions.
“This is a very harsh situation,” Federal Judge Steward Dalzell said to one defendant. “Believe me, Mr. Jackson, I don’t like it one bit.”
Judge Dalzell’s sentiments are being echoed across the country as judges’ hands are truly tied in regards to sentencing crack defendants in drug possession cases. The old law penalized those caught with crack at a ratio of 100:1 when compared with those caught with powder cocaine. The new law reduced that ratio to 18:1 (still not completely “fair” but closer nonetheless).
But the Fair Sentencing Act only applies to people whose offenses were committed after its August 2010 effective date, leaving thousands who have yet to be sentenced to be trapped with the old, disparate law.
Congress didn’t explicitly state that the new law would be retroactive, so it isn’t. After its passage, the sponsors of the law requested Attorney General Eric Holder make it so, but Holder took no such action.
One judge, who decided there’s no way Congress would want them to continue applying a law they recognized as biased, sentenced a defendant under the new law despite his offense happening before the August cut off. The Justice Department appealed the 56 month sentence, stating Judge D. Brock Hornby should have sent the defendant to prison for the mandatory 10 years instead.
According to the New York Times, one judge stated the new law should be called “The Not Quite as Fair as it could be Sentencing Act of 2010” instead. And he’s right. Originally enacted when crime was high and crack cocaine was taking over many urban areas, the law served to send a devastating number of minorities to prison.
Justified by flawed research the original sentencing requirement was said to be necessary because crack was more addictive and dangerous than its higher dollar and more upper class cousin, powder cocaine. So much more dangerous that you had to be caught with 100 times the amount of cocaine to face the same sentence as someone caught with crack.
Now, judges have their hands tied as they are forced to keep sentencing people under the old law because the new one wasn’t made retroactive. Until something is done in Washington to change this, it will go on until all of those who committed offenses before August 2010 are sentenced.
Regardless of the specific drug you are caught with, American courts take drug charges very seriously in defense of the failing “War on Drugs”. If you are accused of a drug crime, contact us today to get a consultation with a local defense attorney that may be able to help.
About David Matson