Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 12, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Atlases Reveal Climate and Weather Impacts

S Street Rising
Gays in the Military

Truthdig Bazaar
Dateline Havana

Dateline Havana

By Reese Erlich

Breaking the Sound Barrier

Breaking the Sound Barrier

By Amy Goodman

more items

Ear to the Ground

Supreme Court Rules Against Mandatory Minimums

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 10, 2007
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decided on Monday that federal sentencing guidelines, a kind of back seat judging considered by many to be racist, should be treated as “advisory” and not at all mandatory. Justices Alito and Thomas, to no one’s great surprise, were the only dissenters.

One of a number of issues with mandatory guidelines is that they tend to punish African Americans more harshly than other Americans. While crack and powder cocaine have, as Justice Ginsburg wrote for the majority, “the same physiological and psychotropic effects,” the guidelines require 100 times the possession of powder cocaine for the same minimum prison term required for the possession of crack cocaine.

And because crack cocaine tends to disproportionately affect African American communities, the guidelines can be seen as a way of targeting African Americans without having to admit it.

New York Times:

The disparities between prison terms for dealing in crack and for peddling powdered cocaine have for years angered some lawyers and civil rights advocates, who have argued that the crack-cocaine penalties unfairly punish black defendants more severely than they do whites. Crack is much more common in poor urban areas than the powder favored by white users, and black people make up 80 percent of those sentenced for crack-dealing.

Two decades ago, when the effects of the two forms of cocaine were less well understood, there was a collective assumption that crack cocaine was far deadlier, although subsequent studies have shown that they “have the same physiological and psychotropic effects,” as Justice Ginsburg put it.

But the United States Sentencing Commission, created in the mid-1980’s to recommend appropriate federal prison terms and lessen wildly disparate sentences in cases of similar circumstances, provided punishments for crack cocaine that were far more severe than those associated with the powder—the same five-year minimum for possessing 5 grams of crack as for 100 times as much powdered cocaine, for instance.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Douglas Chalmers, December 11, 2007 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Mandatory sentencing (the death penalty) is typical of countries like Singapore!!!

Report this

By Daniel, December 11, 2007 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

The Supreme Court’s opinion regarding crack cocaine was a no-brainer.  It should have been a unanimous opinion, but it wasn’t, thanks to Alito and Thomas.  Of the two, Thomas should be crawling back under his rock.  One doesn’t have to be a psychiatrist to see that Thomas is a self-hating back man.  In cases involving race, he has always gone out of his way to render an opinion which is detrimental to his race, or to any race or minority for that matter, even if it flew in the face of common sense, humanity, or compassion.  He is really an Uncle Tom.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, December 10, 2007 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Clarence Thomas should be impeached not because I just disagree with his opinions he should be impeached for doing an impression of a White Racist.He gets away with his insanity because of the color of his skin.Even the high priest of” hang em high “Scalia could see the racism in the drug minimum mandatory sentencing.It is just what the Bush’s do they use color as window dressing for their agenda.Clarence Thomas’ color should not allow him to escape scrutiny for his overt racism against his own people.Where is the Rev Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves and going on the offensive against Clarence Thomas.I guess they are waiting for another Don Imus to say something they characterize as offensive rather than doing something for the 100 s of thousands of their people who are suffering in jail under draconian drug laws.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.