WASHINGTON, D.C.: Federal crack cocaine penalties overstate the harmfulness of the drug, apply mostly to low-level offenders, and hit minorities hardest, concludes the U.S. Sentencing Commission in a new report to Congress, "Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy," released today, May 15. Based on these findings, the Commission maintains it's consistently held position that current crack cocaine penalties significantly undermine the congressional objectives of the Sentencing Reform Act, including fairness, uniformity and proportionality. The solution? Congress should act, says the report.
Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a national, nonpartisan sentencing reform organization, says, "The prisoners, children and families torn apart by these unjustifiably harsh penalties are watching closely and will welcome crack sentencing reforms that restore some justice to crack penalties. Only Congress can change our harsh mandatory minimum crack laws. Lawmakers should not squander the important opportunity presented by the most recent set of findings and recommendations by the Sentencing Commission. The time is ripe for reform, especially given the bipartisan support for crack sentencing reform that has emerged in recent years."
In its report, the Commission again unanimously and strongly urged Congress to act promptly on the following recommendations:
(1) Increase the five-year and ten-year mandatory minimum threshold quantities for crack cocaine offenses to focus the penalties more closely on serious and major traffickers,
(2) Repeal the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and
(3) Reject addressing the 100-to-1 disparity by decreasing the five-year and ten-year mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine offenses, citing no evidence to justify such an increase in quantity-based penalties for powder cocaine offenses.
In addition, the Commission seeks authority to incorporate any future changes to the mandatory minimums for crack into the federal sentencing guidelines.
FAMM strongly supports these recommendations and looks forward to working with members of Congress to implement these reasonable and long-overdue reforms to crack cocaine sentencing. Visit www.ussc.gov to read the report.
---------------------------------------------------
Note on Second Chance Act
H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act, was pulled from the floor of the House of Representatives before it was voted on. FAMM is investigating this unexpected action and will follow up with more information on www.famm.org and ealerts.
---------------------------------------------------
What is FAMM?
FAMM is the national voice for fair and proportionate sentencing laws. We shine a light on the human face of sentencing, advocate for state and federal sentencing reform and mobilize thousands of individuals and families whose lives are adversely affected by unjust sentences. For more information, visit www.famm.org or email famm@famm.org.
Location:
Washington, DC
United States
See map: Google Maps
crack disparity): doubts of it being retroactive if passed??
I am a wife of an inmate that was sentenced based on the crack disparities and am in favor of the much, much needed change.
In the event that congress will enact the new changes, what are the realistic chances that it would become retroactive? Something tells me that we would not be so blessed.....
applying the amendment retroactively): write congress
BAC/2211-01
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts
AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission
ACTION: Request for public comment.
SUMMARY: On May 1, 2007, the Commission submitted to the Congress amendments to the sentencing guidelines and official commentary, which become effective on November 1, 2007, unless Congress acts to the contrary. Such amendments and the reasons for amendment subsequently were published in the Federal Register. 72 FR 28558 (May 21, 2007). Two of the amendments, specifically Amendment 9 pertaining to offenses involving cocaine base ("crack") and Amendment 12 pertaining to certain criminal history rules, have the effect of lowering guideline ranges. The Commission requests comment regarding whether either amendment should be included in subsection (c) of §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) as amendments that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants. The Commission also requests comment regarding whether, if it amends §1B1.10(c) to include either amendment, it also should amend §1B1.10 to provide guidance to the courts on the procedure to be used when applying an amendment retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
DATE: Public comment should be received on or before October 1, 2007.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2-500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs-Retroactivity Public Comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Affairs Officer, Telephone: (202) 502-4590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3582(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, provides that "in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission."
The Commission lists in §1B1.10(c) the specific guideline amendments that the court may apply retroactively under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The background commentary to §1B1.10 lists the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under §1B1.10(b) as among the factors the Commission considers in selecting the amendments included in §1B1.10(c). To the extent practicable, public comment should address each of these factors.
The text of the amendments referenced in this notice also may be accessed through the Commission’s website at www.ussc.gov.
AUTHORITY: 28 U.S.C. § 994(a), (o), (u); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 4.1, 4.3.
Ricardo H. Hinojosa,
Chair