First, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously yesterday to retroactively apply a recently-passed amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines reducing sentences for crack cocaine offenses. The goal of this amendment is to help bring some measure of parity to the federal sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses.
The Commission’s actions today, as well as promulgation of the original amendment for crack cocaine offenses, are only a partial step in mitigating the unwarranted sentencing disparity that exists between Federal powder and crack cocaine defendants. The Commission has continued to call on Congress to address the issue of the 100-to-1 statutory ratio that drives Federal cocaine sentencing policy. Only Congress can provide a comprehensive solution to a fundamental unfairness in Federal sentencing policy. The Commission has consistently expressed its readiness and willingness to work with Congress and others in the criminal justice community to address this very important issue.While not addressed specifically in the Sentencing Commission's statement, a key element of the fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine laws -- aside from the 100-to-1 ratio -- is racial disparities, with Blacks receiving a disproportionate number of the harsher crack sentences.
Talk of the Nation had a terrific discussion of this decision today. It's somewhat lengthy (30 minutes), but if you have time it's worth a listen. I was disappointed that race was not discussed more explicitly (the commissioner of the Sentencing Commission skirted the issue, in my opinion), but at the very least it was included in the broader conversation.
Second, the Michigan House of Representatives reviewed a proposal today to broaden the pool from which potential jurors are drawn, in an effort to increase the representation of racial/ethnic minorities (as well as people living in poor communities) on juries:
The bills could potentially add the names of taxpayers, registered voters and the recipients of government assistance to the pool of potential jurors; currently, jury pools are formed from lists of driver's license and state identification card holders.In addition to jury composition, this proposal also addresses felony disenfranchisement, another criminal justice policy that disproportionately disadvantages people of color, particularly Black men. (According to the Sentencing Project, Black men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times the national average.)
One measure also calls for jury pools to be required to maintain proportional representation by ZIP code, to address what backers said was low participation by the poor concentrated in urban areas...
Wayne County Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas told the committee a 2006 study of the county’s jury selection system found the names of more than one million residents had been removed from consideration for jury duty because they had failed to respond to a jury questionnaire. Thomas also urged the committee to consider restoring the rights of convicted felons to serve on juries after they have finished their sentences and parole or probation.
I was pleased to read about both of these efforts, and curious to see what (if any) real-life changes occur because of them.
4 comments:
I have thought A LOT about this as I am sure most of us have. While I support the spirit of what is attempted here I continue to struggle with this decision. I realize I am setting myself up for lots of criticism here (since when is that new), but here it goes:
I do not believe there is inherently anything UNJUST about a legislature setting different punishment models for different drugs - regardless if they are the same derivative. The argument here isn't if mandatory life in prison is appropriate or morally responsible, but if the disparity between these two drugs is acceptable. Yet who should determine that? I am getting to the point where I think this is a LEGISLATIVE responsibility and not the responsibility of the SC or the Sentencing Commission - although to be fair, I don't really know what the role of the sentencing commission is.
A political scientist who teaches our Con Law classes sent this email around on Monday regarding the Cocaine/Crack disparity case:
"The decision of the Supreme Court today in Kimbrough v. US, No. 06-6330 may be the worst on criminal procedure this decade (and that is saying a lot). A Federal District Judge announced when sentencing a person under the crack cocaine law that he simply thought the law was unfair and he wasn't going to follow it. The Federal Appellate Court overturned the sentence saying that it is unreasonable for a judge to nullify the law. In a 7-2 decision with only Justices Alito and Thomas disagreeing, Justice Ginsburg for the Court overturned the decision and, in effect, said that although she was not striking down the federal statute as unfair and that she was not striking down the federal sentencing guidelines (both of which may make sense, but an entirely different debate over substantive due process), she was siding with the judge because he acted reasonably in this case. Her reason was that we have been discussing the law for a long time and given that we cannot agree, it really didn't matter what Congress thought on the matter."
Michael Fine
I really don't understand the point of Fine's comment?
I'm not entirely sure either - which is one of the reasons I posted it for discussion. My thinking is that he is concerned about the reasonsing the court used to justify the decision. Basically the Court gave lower court judges the permission to rule in certain ways if they simply didn't like the law. So the Court didn't speak to the constitutionality of the law per se, but approved of the lower court judge not following it...
Post a Comment