Do we want crack dealers out on the streets earlier? Are they more dangerous than a powder cocaine addict? Read below:
Post:
"I am pleased to be able to post a new opinion from a district court that provides a thorough and thoughtful account of why the court has adopted a 1:1 ratio for crack sentence cases. Here is the openning paragraph and one key passage from US v. Gully, No. CR 08-3005-MWB (N.D. Iowa May 18, 2009) . . ."
Excellent comments left below the post:
"Notice I say "offenders" and not types of drug. One of the things that gets lost in the popular press and, consequently, the debate on the 100:1 ratio is what the law actually is punishing. Certainly there can be no doubt that crack is cocaine. While I do not doubt the many anecdotal stories and medical studies that suggest that crack is more dangerous to it's user, the criminal sanctions are against the individuals selling crack and powder, and the differential conduct they engage in, not the drugs themselves. That may seem simple, but I think it's lost on many people.
The only pertinent question to ask when determining punishment is what are differences between these two groups of offenders that suggest one crime is more serious, more dangerous, and more ruinous to the community than the other?
To put it simply, the answer to this question is obvious to anyone bothering to look at the facts rather than simply go with the prevailing wind or pander to race politics.
You may comfortably set aside the facts about what crack did to communities around this country in the '80's and '90's, probably because many lawyers and judges live comfortably far from these ravaged communities.
You may comfortably dismiss the individual human toll of crack because crack is very often a poor man's drug and many lawyers and judges also avoid personal or familial knowledge of the personal devastation of crack. . . " Read More
Comments