LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.  
November 9, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Happy Birthday, Pat Tillman

Kucinich: Why I Voted No

Afghanistan's Sham Army

When Voters Disrupt the Tea Party

Rupert Murdoch vs. Google (and Reality)

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Kucinich: Why I Voted No

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
Daddy Goes to Work

Daddy Goes to Work

By Jabari Asim
$12.47

A Mercy

A Mercy

By Toni Morrison
$14.37

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Supreme Court Rules Against Mandatory Minimums

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 10, 2007
Supreme Court
supremecourtus.gov

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

Advertisement

Chrome Bag - Free Shipping

Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Douglas Chalmers, December 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm #

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

Report this

By Daniel, December 11, 2007 at 11:38 am #

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 9:47 pm #

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

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
Click here to learn more about Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
Chrome Bag - Free Shipping
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.