![]() |
|
||
|
Supreme Court Rules Against Mandatory MinimumsPosted on Dec 10, 2007
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.
Previous item: Gang-Rape Victim Accuses Halliburton/KBR of Cover-Up Next item: Scooter Libby Cries Uncle Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Douglas Chalmers, December 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm #
Mandatory sentencing (the death penalty) is typical of countries like Singapore!!!
Report thisBy 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 thisBy 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