Crack-Cocaine and Sentencing

In last Sunday's Times, there was an AP story captioned "Commission suggests lighter sentence for drug conviction." Of course the community was/is focused on the Confederate History Month debate. However, mandatory sentencing guidelines is an interest of mine because of its real impact on the black community.

The story had to do with a recommendation by the U. S. Sentencing Commission to lower the sentencing guidelines for a first time crack-cocaine conviction. The argument is grounded on something called the "100-to-1 disparity: Trafficking in 5 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence, but it takes 500 grams of cocaine powder to warrant the same sentence."

The piece goes on the conclude that "...crack is more of an urban and minority drug while cocaine powder is used more often by the affluent, and that harsher penalties for crack cocaine unfairly punish blacks."

My push back in this arena has to with the mandatory nature of sentencing. In my view, the
jury should be granted latitude to evaluate each case based on the evidence presented, and render an appropriate dispensation accordingly. I don't have a problem with guidelines for sentencing, but that is what they should be, guidelines, subject to the facts of an individual case.

Now to be clear. I believe crack-cocaine is a scourge on society in general and the black community in particular. It drives murder and other forms of violent crimes that adversely impact all of us. Society has an obligation to address this problem.

Sentencing guidelines are certainly acceptable in this or any other criminal case. However, mandatory sentencing is not in keeping with the Sixth Amendment. After all, how can we know what is a fair punishment before the jury hears all the facts.