the war on drugs is a failure. we know who disapproves of recreational drug use and why.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:46:30 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > *Why US v Blewett is the Obama Justice Department's greatest shame > **Explain the paradox that the US still jails thousands of African > Americans on sentences it admits were unfair? It can't be done > *Alec Karakatsanis > Tuesday 23 July 2013 > > The differential treatment of crack cocaine and powder cocaine by > America's criminal "justice" system has been exposed as discriminatory and > admitted to be unfair. Yet, the secret nightmare continues for thousands of > African Americans still in prison for crack cocaine offenses, while people > convicted of powder cocaine offenses – the majority of whom are white or > Hispanic – have served far shorter sentences. Even as the US government has > reformed the injustice of punitive sentencing for crack, it has doubled > down on the injustice for those imprisoned before the reforms. > > I'll never forget the first time I had to explain federal crack cocaine > laws to a client. I was 25 years old, fresh out of law school, and working > as a public defender in Alabama. I had come to the local jail, where my > client was being held in a 6ft x 8ft cell with three other men and no > access to fresh air or to a single window. > > My client thought he would be released from jail and home with his family > after our first appearance in court. Instead, I told him, the tiny bag of > crack cocaine that police had found in his car – less than half the size of > a ping-pong ball – meant that he would likely spend the next five to 40 > years in prison. > > Last month, President Obama quietly did something that should shake every > American to the core. Seeking to enforce federal crack cocaine laws that > have since been repealed, the Obama administration asked a federal > appeals > court<http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2013/06/as-expected-feds-ask-full-sixth-circuit-to-review-and-reverse-blewett-crack-retroactivity-ruling.html>to > ensure that thousands of human beings, mostly poor and mostly black, > remain locked in prison – even though everyone agrees that there is no > justification for them to be there. > > To understand Obama's decision and to understand why you have probably not > heard about this, it is important to realize just how normalized rampant > incarceration has become in our society. America now puts people in prisons > at rates unparalleled in the modern world and unprecedented in American > history. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. > > Half of all human beings in federal prison are there because of a > nonviolent drug offense. The number of nonviolent drug offenders in prisons > and jails around America has increased 1100% since 1980. The vast majority > of those in prison are very poor. African Americans constitute only 14-15% > of the nation's drug users (about the same as their percentage of the > general population); yet, they constitute 37% of those arrested for drug > offenses, 59% of those convicted for drug offenses, and 74% of those > sentenced to prison for a drug offense. > > The result: twenty years or so into the "war on > drugs<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/drugs>", > America incarcerated blacks at a rate six times higher than South Africa > did during apartheid. > > Until President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, on 3 August 2010, there > had been, for over two decades, a 100:1 disparity in the quantities of > drugs > seized<http://www.famm.org/federal/DrugOffenses/CrackCocaine/SixthCircuitOpiniononTheFairSentencingAct.aspx>that > would trigger the mandatory minimum penalties faced by tens of > thousands of people like my client. In other words, while my client's five > to 40 years was triggered by only 5g of crack cocaine, it would take 500g > (half a kilo) of powder cocaine to trigger the same penalty. > > A further disparity: 82% of federal crack cocaine defendants are > African-American; only 27% of powder cocaine defendants are > African-American. In the early years of the 100:1 ratio, from 1988 to 1995, > *no whites at all* were brought to trial by federal prosecutors under the > crack provisions in 17 states, which included major cities such as Boston, > Denver, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles. > > The president, Congress, and every serious expert agreed that this > disparity was unjustifiable. Indeed, the two substances are > pharmacologically identical. Curiously, though, without giving any reasons, > Congress did not reduce the disparity to 1:1, as even federal law > enforcement officials had conceded was appropriate. Instead, it picked the > nice round number of 18:1. Even in making that arbitrarily decision, > however, Congress did not indicate what was to happen to all those already > sitting in prison under a law that Congress and the White House had now > found to be unjust. > > This was a moment almost unique in history: when a supposedly free society > admitted that many of its citizens remain in prison for *no good reason*. > > Strangely, the Obama > administration<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration>initially > urged in federal courts across the country that the old > discriminatory penalties should still be applied to those arrested but not > yet sentenced at the time the law was passed. However, the administration > reversed course after significant criticism, and the US supreme court held > last year that the new, more "fair" sentences must be applied to those not > yet sentenced. > > But that case did not decide the fate of any of the thousands of people > already sitting in prison because of what all agree is an unfair law. For > those people – sentenced, in some cases, just days or weeks before the Fair > Sentencing Act was signed – our society's acknowledgment that they remain > in prison for no good reason may not help them at all – because the > government did not care to reduce their penalties retroactively when it > declared them unjust. > > For several years, federal judges have done nothing to remedy this > injustice; one famously concluded that the prisoners sentenced under the > old law had simply "lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic > dice"<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/19bar.html>. > So, there are American citizens serving tens of thousands of years in > prison because, according to all three branches of government, it's just > their tough luck? > > Apparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of > appeals for the sixth circuit > held<http://prisonlawblog.com/blog/blewett-decision-faqs-sixth-circuits-retroactive-crack-decision>that > the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously > sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The > two-judge > majority opinion wrote forcefully > (pdf)<http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0141p-06.pdf>and with > unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the > old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were > entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences. > > The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision – which > will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine > client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign > dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population > that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good > reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by > President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public > opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society. > > • Editor's note: though not technically incorrect, this article was > amended to include the phrase "or Hispanic" in the first paragraph, at > 1.30pm ET on 23 July > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame?INTCMP=SRCH > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
