Latest Prisoner Numbers: States Continue to Level Off, But Federal Incarceration Grows at Record Pace 4/12/02

Drug War Chronicle, recent top items


recent blog posts "In the Trenches" activist feed


The number of people behind bars in the United States continues to hover just below the two million mark, with the number of people in jails and state prisons holding roughly steady, according to the latest report from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2001" ( But the federal prison population grew at a record pace of 7.2%. The number of people in US jails, state prisons and the federal prison system totaled 1,965,495 as of June 30, 2001, BJS reported, up a modest 1.1% from the previous year.

Drug offenders constituted 61% of all federal prisoners and 22% of all prisoners, according to BJS's latest breakdown on prisoner offenses. Because that report, the BJS Bulleting "Prisoners in 2000 (, was based on an earlier prison census at the end of 1999), the precise percentage of drug prisoners may have varied slightly, but there is as yet no indication that drug offenders are significantly declining as a percentage of the prison population. At the end of 1999, state prisons held more than 251,000 drug offenders, while the federal system held more than 68,000, the 2000 report said. In addition, an unknown number of property, violent, and public order offenders are serving time on charges related directly or indirectly to drug prohibition and the black market.

The federal prison system grew by 7,372 inmates in the first six months of 2000, "the largest ever growth in the federal system," BJS reported. Some 152,788 people were imprisoned in the federal system at midyear 2001. If drug offenders continue to constitute about 60% of all federal prisoners -- the figure was 61% at the end of 1999 -- these latest numbers suggest that the number of drug offenders doing federal time is now closer to 90,000.

Local jails held 631,240 inmates, up 10,000 from a year earlier, while state prisons held 1,252,743. The number of state prisoners increased by 7,000 in the first six months of 2001 -- only 0.4%, the lowest rate of increase since 1973. For jail populations, the rate of increase is the lowest since 1982, BJS reported.

The relative stagnation in state prison populations is the result of small decreases in many of the larger prison states, along with mixed trends in the remaining states. Of the four largest state prison systems, three (California, Texas, and New York) saw declines, while only Florida posted an increase, adding 774 inmates. Eleven smaller states saw increases of at least 5%, led by Mississippi (12.5%), West Virginia (8.7%), and Vermont and Nebraska (7.7% each).

Twelve states saw declining prison populations, led by New Jersey (down 9.6%), Massachusetts (down 3.7%), and New York (down 3.5%).

Even with the slowdown in incarceration rates, America's jails and prisons are gobbling up 587 people each week, BJS reported. More than 625,000 people entered prison in 2000 -- but more than 600,000 finished their sentences and walked out the prison doors. For each of the last three years, more than half a million prisoners have been released.

Also, BJS noted, young black men continue to be imprisoned at a rate disproportionate to their weight in the population as a whole. Twelve percent of black males aged 18-34 were behind bars, compared to 4% of Hispanic males and 1.8% of white males. And although blacks constitute only 13% of the US population, the number of black prisoners exceeds that of whites. More than 872,000 blacks are behind bars, compared to 754,000 whites and 303,000 Hispanics.

(The Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice has issued a report on the new incarceration data, "Cutting Correctly: New Prison Policies for Times of Fiscal Crisis," available at online.)

3. Meek Sentencing Commission Recommends Minor Reforms in Crack-Powder Cocaine Sentences

The prospects for meaningful and progressive reform of the federal crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparities -- five grams of crack nets the same mandatory minimum five-year federal prison sentence as 500 grams of powder -- have been dimmed by the US Sentencing Commission's decision last week to recommend only minor changes in federal statutes next month. The commission also backed away from using its power to amend the sentencing guidelines, which would have made its proposals law in six months unless Congress acted to block them. Between the Sentencing Commission and the "Drug Sentence Reform Act of 2001," cosponsored by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (UT) and Jeff Sessions (AL), sentencing reform advocates are feeling like they're going nowhere.

In an April 5 statement, the commission announced that it "intends to ask Congress to modify federal drug laws to address the disparity in treatment between crack and powder cocaine." But the statement went on to say that "the Sentencing Commission unanimously concluded that... greater punishment for crack cocaine than for powder cocaine is clearly warranted." Without naming a precise figure, however, the commission added that "the current 100 to 1 drug quantity ratio between the two forms of cocaine is not appropriate."

"The recommendation is that 25 grams of crack be the trigger for the mandatory five-year sentence, said Julie Stewart, head of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (, a Washington, DC-based sentencing reform group whose mainstay is families and friends of people serving lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. "This is a disappointment. This is not real progress," she told DRCNet.

"What kind of reform is this?" asked Nora Callahan of the November Coalition (, another sentencing reform group. "The Sentencing Commission has admitted that only 67 crack defendants in the last three years would have benefited from their proposal," she told DRCNet. "We don't think this is even a half-step toward real reform of the crack-powder disparity. It's cruel," she said.

Stewart told DRCNet the Sentencing Commission had been cowed by a tough Justice Department stand against any changes in the law last month. Then, Deputy Attorney Larry Thompson told the body that current penalties are "proper," that no changes in the law are needed, and that if any changes are made, they should only include raising the sentences for powder cocaine offenses (

"Lowering crack penalties now would simply send the wrong message, that we care less about the people and the communities victimized by crack," Thompson told the commission. "It is something we really cannot support."

The Sentencing Commission obliquely acknowledged feeling the fire from Justice. "Some have said the commission could bring either heat or light, or both, to this issue," said commission Chair Diana Murphy, a federal judge from Minneapolis, explaining its decision not to amend the sentencing guidelines. "We have decided we can do best to bring light as opposed to heat at this point."

"Justice really chilled the commission," said Stewart. "The Sentencing Commission has been looking at crack and powder for nine years, and Justice comes up with a two-month study and concludes that that current sentences are proper," she said. "It was a slap in the face to the commission, and they turned the other cheek."

Neither FAMM nor the November Coalition feel much better about the Hatch-Sessions bill, "The Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001," S. 1874. That bill would increase the quantity threshold for the five-year mandatory minimum from 5 grams to 20 grams, but would also reduce the threshold for powder cocaine from 500 grams to 400 grams.

Sen. Sessions told USA Today on Monday crack penalties were too high. "The punishment for crack is too heavy, he said. "Five grams is the weight of one nickel. In state court, five grams would get probation."

But under his bill, mere possession of five grams would get a mandatory minimum one-year sentence, down from five-years. The bill also provides sentence enhancements for people in a "leadership role" in a drug offense.

"Sessions has publicly said he was angry with Justice over its performance at the commission, but his crack fix is worse than anything the Sentencing Commission is going to send over," said Stewart. "It's all very depressing. This is an election year, and Congress will play politics with this. Justice already has, and the Sentencing Commission bent with the political winds."

"To call the Hatch-Sessions bill 'reform' is a bad joke," said the November Coalition's Callahan. "This bill is inadequate. It has new penalties. It will not redress the racial disparities," she argued. "Don't they realize that 85% of the federal powder cocaine defendants are black or brown? Maybe they do."

Sentencing reform is only part of the problem, said Callahan. "This is a package deal. They have to stop targeting minority communities, they have to stop over-policing. Racial disparities in the drug war will never be addressed by piecemeal reforms," she said.

Still, sentencing reform is a point of attack, and the battle is not lost. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote the letter last fall asking the Sentencing Commission for "guidance" on the crack-powder issue. Although Leahy has not drafted a more progressive bill to counter Hatch-Sessions, Callahan, at least, pronounced herself hopeful he would act. And the Sentencing Commission does not make its formal recommendation to Congress until May 15.

"People should be writing to Congress and the Sentencing Commission telling them we need to make crack penalties rational," said Stewart. "They need thousands of letters telling them not to be cowed. We don't believe in quantity-based sentencing, but if we have to accept that, we need to convince Congress that the trigger should be similar to heroin, 100 grams."

-- END --
Link to Drug War Facts
Please make a generous donation to support Drug War Chronicle in 2007!          

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Issue #232, 4/12/02 Yale University Joins End Run Around HEA Anti-Drug Provision, Will Replace Federal Aid Lost by Students from Drug Convictions | Latest Prisoner Numbers: States Continue to Level Off, But Federal Incarceration Grows at Record Pace | Meek Sentencing Commission Recommends Minor Reforms in Crack-Powder Cocaine Sentences | Afghan Eradication Program Sparks Armed Resistance, Protests -- Farmers Blame America | More Trouble Down South: Peru Rejects US "Zero Coca" Goal | Major Demonstrations Against US Colombia Policy Set for April 20-22 | Denver Bookstore Cannot Be Forced to Name Buyer of Drug Manufacturing Books, Court Says | NORML NYC Marijuana Ad Campaign Taps Mayor's Comments, Gets Attention | Errata: Three Strikes | Alerts: HEA, Bolivia, DEA Hemp Ban, SuperBowl Ad, Ecstasy Legislation, Mandatory Minimums, Medical Marijuana | The Reformer's Calendar

This issue -- main page
This issue -- single-file printer version
Drug War Chronicle -- main page
Chronicle archives
Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en EspaŮol Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home
Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em PortuguÍs Latest News Drug Library Search
special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]