.: Sentencing

News2020.com Drugs Policy News.

News2020.com for the latest sceptical slant on the 'Drugs War' lunacy. Bringing together the most relevant third party news feeds, we hope you choose to bookmark News2020.com now.

For Immediate Release: October 3, 2008
For More Info: Tony Newman (646)335-5384 or Ethan Nadelmann (646)335-2240

Mexican President Proposes Decriminalizing Small Amounts of Some Drugs, Including Marijuana and Cocaine despite U.S. Opposition

New Law Would Prioritize Going after Major Drug Dealers and Violent Crime, not People who Use Drugs

International Drug Policy Expert Ethan Nadelmann Available for Comment on Significance and Impact of Proposal

President Felipe Calderon on Thursday proposed decriminalizing small amounts of some drugs, including cocaine and marijuana. The legislation would offer treatment instead of incarceration for people who are struggling with drug addiction. A recent survey found that the number of Mexicans addicted to drugs doubled in the past six years to more than 300,000.

President Calderon has made a crackdown on Mexico?s drug cartels a cornerstone of his administration since taking office. He has sent 30,000 troops around the country to try to stop the violence. But armed attacks and executions have only increased with more than 3,000 people dying from violence related to drug prohibition this year alone.

The United States is already criticizing the new proposal. One official who did not want to be identified said they oppose the policy because it ?rewards the drug traffickers and doesn?t make children?s lives safer.? Mexico?s Congress passed a similar decriminalization bill in 2006, but the bill was eventually dropped because of U.S. opposition and pressure.

Statement from Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (see description below).

?President Calderon?s proposal to decriminalize personal possession of illicit drugs is consistent with the broader trend throughout Western Europe, Canada and other parts of Latin America to stop treating drug use and possession as a criminal problem. But it contrasts sharply with the United States, where arrests for marijuana possession hit a record high last year ? roughly 800,000 annually ? and now represent nearly half of all drug arrests nationwide.

?Mexico is trying to make the right choices on law enforcement priorities; it?s time for the United States to do the same,? said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

?The White House Drug Czar John P. Walters should think twice before criticizing a foreign government for its drug policy, much less holding the United States out as a model. Looking to the United States as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid South Africa for how to deal with race. This country leads the world in per-capita incarceration rates, with less than five percent of the world?s population but almost 25 percent of the world?s prisoners. About 500,000 people are in U.S. prisons and jails today simply for violating a drug law; that's almost 10 times the total in 1980,? said Nadelmann.

read full post

[Courtesy of the Crack the Disparity Coalition]

Secure Fairness in Crack Cocaine Sentencing -- Join Lobby Day this Spring

Plans are underway for the second national lobby day for crack cocaine sentencing reform in Washington, DC, hosted by the Crack the Disparity Coalition. An exact date has not yet been set but we invite advocates from around the country to attend the Capitol Hill event this spring. As a participant, you will speak with Members of Congress and their staff about the unjust sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and the need to eliminate it. Training and materials will be provided to you. Look for more details in the December issue of the Crack the Disparity Newsletter.

Home for the Holidays

By Karen Garrison

Karen Garrison is the mother of twin sons sentenced to nearly two decades for a first-time nonviolent crack cocaine offense. Her son Lawrence will soon be released due to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recent changes to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses.

The dream will be a reality for one of my sons who will be home this December. It has been 10 years and Lawrence and Lamont's room has hardly been touched. I covered the beds with heavy plastic. Long ago I gave away their clothes and shoes to shelters and halfway houses, not only because of their weight loss, but clothing goes out of style in a period of ten years. I must now begin to prepare a place for one of my twins, never forgetting that one will remain behind unjust bars. I am buying sheets, towels, and gathering healthy recipes he will enjoy preparing. I will try to purchase new furniture and have already bought the paint for his room. Coming home to those same bunk beds would just make it harder on both of us. Those are the beds he shared with his twin brother Lamont. Click here to read more.

Commute Crack Cocaine Sentences in Time for the Holidays

By Jasmine Tyler

This month the Crack the Disparity Coalition launched the "Home for the Holidays" campaign to rally support for individuals serving excessive penalties for crack cocaine offenses who have filed commutation requests with President George W. Bush. The President expressed concern for the crack cocaine sentencing disparity in the early days of his administration. The sentencing disparity "ought to be addressed by making sure the powder-cocaine and the crack-cocaine penalties are the same," he said in 2001. "I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory." Advocates are hoping to capitalize on these sympathies to expedite applications for crack cocaine cases and increase recommendations for clemency.

The campaign is promoting support for clemency applicants seeking relief from the uniquely severe penalties for low-level crack cocaine offenses that subject defendants possessing as little as 5 grams of crack cocaine to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A powder cocaine defendant must be convicted of selling 100 times that amount to trigger the same sentence. Since Congress has yet to act to alleviate this disparity, advocates' focus this fall is to ensure that those who are seeking clemency do not go unheard.

Teen Profiles Crack Cocaine Reformer: Pamela Alexander - A Profile in Courage

By Laura S., Cincinatti, OH

This article was reprinted courtesy of TeenInk.com, a nonprofit, national teen magazine, book series, and website devoted entirely to teenage writing and art.

On December 11, 2007, members of the United States Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to make a groundbreaking change in one of their policies. They decided that the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine crimes and those involving powder cocaine was exceedingly unjust and prejudiced. With crack users being predominantly black and powder cocaine users predominantly white, the Sentencing Commission judged the much harsher sentences for crack users to be racially biased at their core. The Commission therefore has allowed thousands currently imprisoned for crack cocaine violations to appeal their sentences before federal judges, in an effort to shorten these sentences where feasible. While this represents a major step toward racial equality and justice, one uncelebrated, independent woman put her career on the line for this same issue - seventeen years ago.

Petition President Bush

Join citizens concerned about the harsh mandatory minimum sentences for low-level crack cocaine offenses by telling President George Bush and Pardon Attorney Ronald Rodgers to expedite and give special consideration to commutation applicants serving excessive sentences for crack cocaine.

Save the Date

September 24-27, 2008: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation 38th Annual Legislative Conference, Washington, D.C.

September 26-September 28, 2008: Critical Resistance 10th Anniversary Celebration and International Conference and Strategy Session, Oakland, CA

October 19-22, 2008: International Community Corrections Association 16th Annual International Research Conference, "Risk, Resilience and Reentry," St. Louis, MO

Spring 2009: Crack the Disparity Lobby Day, Washington, D.C.

Media Attention

Daily Press Editorial on Equalization of Crack and Powder Cocaine

Sun-Sentinel Coverage on Prison Term Reductions for Cocaine Cases

Kansas City Star Coverage on Former Kansas City Royal Baseball Player Willie Mays Aikens

The Crack the Disparity Coalition includes the American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Break the Chains, Drug Policy Alliance, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Open Society Policy Center, Restoring Dignity, Inc., Students for Sensible Drug Policy, The Sentencing Project, and United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society.

read full post

Weldon Angelos was a Salt Lake City marijuana dealer and aspiring hip-hop recording label empresario when he was busted in 2003. The federal marijuana charge could have sent him to prison for five years, but prosecutors also hit him with three counts of using a gun during the commission of a crime because he carried a pistol in an ankle holster on one occasion, had one in his car on another, and had more guns at home.

Weldon Angelos (via mpp.org) Although Angelos was never accused of using or even brandishing a weapon, he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to a breathtaking mandatory minimum 55-year sentence on the gun charges. The federal judge who sentenced him said his hands were tied by mandatory minimum sentencing laws, forcing him to impose a sentence he called "unjust, cruel, and even irrational."

But now, in the wake of the US Supreme Court's pro-gun rights decision in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, a well-known law professor and some collaborating attorneys are challenging Angelos' sentence. The high court's ruling should make it more difficult to add huge sentence enhancements simply because someone owns a gun, said Douglas Berman, a law professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University and author of the Sentencing Law and Policy blog.

Angelos appealed his draconian sentence, but a federal appeals court upheld it, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Now, Berman and company are seeking a new hearing to have his sentence overturned based on the Heller decision. No date has yet been set for that hearing.

"Most people think I'm crazy at first," Berman told the American Law Daily. "I'm fighting people on the left who think this guy's a bad person just because he touched a gun, and I'm fighting people on the right who like guns but don't like people like (Angelos) with guns. Heller says the Second Amendment has to mean something."

One attorney working on the case, Brian Heberlig, added that it was unfair to punish Angelos with an extra 25-year sentence "based solely on handguns passively stored in Angelos's home."

Some observers label the unique effort a long-shot, but for Weldon Angelos and others who, like him, are serving extra years or decades merely because they owned guns when they committed their drug offenses, it could be the only chance to ever see freedom again.

read full post

Sentencing reform is coming to Pennsylvania. As we reported last week, sentencing reform bill House Bill 4 had passed the Senate and awaited routine approval in the House. Now the bill, which would allow for the diversion of nonviolent drug offenders into treatment programs, has passed the House and been signed by Gov. Ed Rendell (D) and will go into effect 90 days after official publication.

State Correctional Institution, Chester, Pennsylvania It won't be soon enough for the cash-starved Keystone State, where the number of prisoners has quadrupled since the 1980s and increased by 21% in the last six years. Prison spending currently eats up 6% of the total state budget.

The bill and related legislation is being described by some involved in the process as the biggest sentencing reform in years in Pennsylvania. It will allow the early release of some prisoners, including drug and petty theft offenders, if they complete educational and job-training programs.

"This represents a new approach to criminal justice for offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes," said House Speaker Dennis M. O'Brien (R-Philadelphia), one of the bills' chief advocates. "It will make the public safer, ensure that offenders receive services essential to break the cycle of crime, reduce duplication of efforts that waste taxpayer dollars, and ensure that crime victims are treated fairly," he told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"We have a serious problem here in Pennsylvania with the numbers of people we are sending to prison," said William DiMascio, whose organization, The Prison Society, advocates on behalf of prisoners. "With so many new people entering the system, and with sentences becoming longer and parole becoming tighter, it was inevitable that we would reach a point of saturation. With prisons at capacity -- and beyond capacity -- you begin to have dangerous conditions, both for the people held there and for the people who work there," he said. "Doing nothing was not an option."

But although early release and diversion provisions in the bill do not apply to violent offenders, the politics of violent crime has already intruded. In response to the killing of a Philadelphia police officer, just four days after signing the bill, Gov. Rendell issued a statement announcing the suspension of releases for all paroled prisoners pending a review of the parole and corrections systems.

"Last week, Philadelphia Police Officer Patrick McDonald was tragically murdered by a paroled offender, but it is even more tragic that this was the second instance within the last four months of a parolee shooting a Philadelphia police officer," wrote Rendell, referring to the shooting of Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. "Heartbreaking losses such as these have shed light on the need to thoroughly review the process by which Pennsylvania paroles violent offenders. Therefore, I am asking you to review the way in which these two cases were managed by the Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole in order to minimize the likelihood that these kinds of scenarios will be repeated."

So, for the time being, someone paroled after doing time for a nonviolent drug offense is going to be stuck in prison because a paroled violent offender killed a police officer, the new law notwithstanding.

read full post

With election day little more than a month away, it is time for a round-up of drug policy reform initiatives facing voters in November. Not only are there a number of state-level initiatives dealing with marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana, and sentencing reform (or its opposite), there are also a handful of initiatives at the county or municipal level.

November 4th is coming up But after a spate of drug reform initiatives beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing into the beginning of this decade, the pace has slowed this year. Of the 139 statewide initiatives identified by the Initiative and Referendum Institute as making the ballot this year, only seven have anything to do with drug reform, and four of those seek to increase sentences for various drug offenses.

Drug reformers have had an impressive run, especially with medical marijuana efforts, winning in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, and losing only in conservative South Dakota. Reformers also scored an impressive coup with California's "treatment not jail" initiative, Proposition 36, in 2002. At the municipal level, initiatives making adult marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority have won in cities across California; as well as Denver; Seattle; Missoula County, Montana; Holly Springs, Arkansas; and Hailey, Idaho. Detroit and several smaller Michigan cities have also approved municipal medical marijuana initiatives.

One reason for the slow-down in reformers' resort to the initiative process is that, as Marijuana Policy Project assistant communications director Dan Bernath put it, "We've already grabbed all the low-hanging fruit."

While medical marijuana initiatives have had an impressive run, the remainder of the 22 initiative and referendum states -- Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming -- present a more difficult social and political terrain, in most cases. Running a successful initiative is also costly, said Bernath.

"Only half the states have initiatives, so there are only so many places where reformers can push them," he said. "And it is an expensive process that is often complicated. On the other hand, you don't have to rely on timid politicians. The voters are often way out in front of politicians on marijuana reform initiatives, and with an initiative, you don't have to worry about those timid politicians tinkering with your legislation and taking all the teeth out of it," Bernath noted. "As a general rule, I think most reformers would prefer to see something passed by the voters, that gives it a lot of legitimacy."

And that's just what reformers are trying to do with medical marijuana in Michigan and marijuana decriminalization in Massachusetts this year, both of which appear poised to pass. Likewise, in California, reformers are seeking to expand and deepen Prop. 36, but they also face a pair of sentencing initiatives aimed at harsher treatment of drug offenders. And next door in Oregon, anti-crime crusaders also have a pair of initiatives aimed at punishing drug offenders -- among others.

Here's a rundown of the statewide drug reform and/or sentencing initiatives:

CALIFORNIA: It's the battle of the crime and sentencing initiatives, with Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) going up against a pair of initiatives headed in the other direction. Building on the success (and limitations) of 2002's Prop. 36, Prop. 5 would expand the number of drug offenders diverted from prison into treatment, expand prison and parole rehabilitation programs, allow inmates earlier release for participating in such programs, and cut back the length of parole. It would also decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Led by the Drug Policy Alliance Southern California office, the Yes on Prop. 5 campaign has won broad support from drug treatment professionals, with the notable exception of drug court advocates. But it also faces opposition, not only from the drug court crew and the usual law enforcement suspects, but also actor Martin Sheen and several prominent newspaper editorial boards. No polls on Prop. 5's prospects have been released. See our earlier in-depth reporting on Prop. 5 here.

Proposition 6, the Safe Neighborhoods Act, is primarily aimed at gang members, violent criminals, and criminal aliens, but also includes provisions increasing penalties for methamphetamine possession, possession with intent, and distribution to be equal to those for cocaine, and provides for the expulsion from public housing of anyone convicted of a drug offense. The measure also mandates increased spending for law enforcement. Read the California League of Women Voters' analysis of Prop. 6 here.

Proposition 9, also known as the Crime Victims Bill of Rights Act, unsurprisingly is concerned mostly with "victims' rights," but also includes provisions that would block local authorities from granting early release to prisoners to alleviate overcrowding and mandates that the state fund corrections costs as much as necessary to accomplish that end. It would also lengthen the amount of time a prisoner serving a life sentence who has been denied parole must wait before re-applying. Currently, he must wait one to five years; under Prop. 9, he must wait three to 15 years. Prop. 9 would also allow parolees who have been jailed for alleged parole violations to be held 15 days instead of the current 10 before they are entitled to a hearing to determine if they can be held pending a revocation hearing, and stretches from 35 to 45 the number of days they could be held before such a hearing. These last two provisions, as well as one limiting legal counsel for parolees, all conflict with an existing federal court order governing California's procedures. Read the California League of Women Voters' analysis of Prop. 9 here.

Ironically, both "tough on crime" initiatives have received significant funding and support from Henry Nicholas, the co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. Nicholas has reportedly contributed at least $5.9 million to the initiatives. That was before he was indicted in June on federal fraud and drug charges. His indictment alleges that he kept properties for drug parties, supplied methamphetamine and cocaine to friends and prostitutes, and spiked technology executives' drinks with Ecstasy.

MASSACHUSETTS: The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy is sponsoring an initiative that would decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Known as Question 2 on the November ballot, the initiative builds on nearly a decade's worth of work by local activists who ran dozens of successful ballot questions directed at individual representatives. Question 2 looks like almost a sure winner; it garnered 72% support in a mid-August poll. Still, late-organizing opposition has formed, primarily from the usual suspects in law enforcement and prosecutors' offices. See our earlier analysis of Question 2 .

MICHIGAN: Michigan is poised to become the first medical marijuana state in the Midwest. An initiative sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care and appearing on the ballot as Proposition 1 would allow patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. It would require the department to create an ID card system for qualified patients and their designated caregivers and would allow patients and caregivers to grow small amounts of marijuana indoors in a secure facility. It would also permit both registered and unregistered patients and caregivers to assert a medical necessity defense to any prosecution involving marijuana. A poll released this week showed the measure gaining the approval of 66% of voters. Read our earlier analysis of the initiative and campaign here.

OREGON: While medical marijuana activists are working on a dispensary initiative for 2010, perennial Oregon "crime fighter" Kevin Mannix is once again looking to throw more people in prison. Ballot Measure 61, "Mandatory Sentences For Drug Dealers, Identity Thieves, Burglars, And Car Thieves," is pretty self-explanatory. It would impose mandatory minimum sentences for the manufacture or delivery of cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine of 36 months in some cases and 30 months in others. It also lays out similar mandatory minimums for the other criminal offenders listed above. Mannix originally included a provision attempting to supplant the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, but dropped it when it became apparent it could drag down the entire initiative.

Another measure initiated by the legislature and referred to the voters, Ballot Measure 57, would also increase penalties for the sale or distribution of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and Ecstasy. It sets a sentencing range of 34 months to 130 months, depending on the quantity of the drug involved. The measure would also require drug treatment for certain offenders and impose sanctions for those who resist, provide grants to local jurisdictions for jails, drug courts, and treatment services, and limit judges' ability to reduce sentences.

LOCAL INITIATIVES: In addition to the statewide initiatives mentioned above, there are also a handful of municipal initiatives on the November 4 ballot. Here they are:

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA: In Berkeley, Measure JJ seeks to broaden and regularize medical marijuana access. Supported by the Berkeley Patients Group and at least two city council members, the measure would expand the non-residential zones where dispensaries can locate, create an oversight commission including representatives from each of the three existing collectives to promulgate standards and determine whether relocating or future operators are in compliance, issue zoning certificates by right if operators meet standards, and bring Berkeley possession limits in line with recent state court rulings determining that such limits are unconstitutional. The ballot argument in favor of the measure can be viewed at the link above; no ballot argument opposing the measure has been submitted.

FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: The local grassroots organization Sensible Fayetteville is sponsoring an initiative that would make enforcement of adult marijuana possession laws the lowest law enforcement priority. It also includes language mandating city officials to write an annual letter to their state and federal representatives notifying them of the city's position and urging them to adopt a similar one. If the measure passes, Fayetteville will become the second Arkansas community to adopt such an ordinance. Nearby Eureka Springs did so in 2007.

FERNDALE, MICHIGAN: Ferndale passed a medical marijuana initiative in 2005, but this year a shadowy group known as the National Organization for Positive Medicine has placed an initiative on the ballot that would allow for the distribution of medical marijuana, but only by the National Organization for Positive Medicine. The initiative is not affiliated with the statewide medical marijuana initiative.

HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII: Hawaii's Big Island (Hawaii County) will be voting on an initiative making adult marijuana possession offenses the lowest law enforcement priority. Ballot Question 1 not only makes adult possession offenses the lowest priority, it would also bar county law enforcement officials from accepting federal deputization or commissions to enforce laws in conflict with the initiative, prohibits the County Council from accepting or spending funds to enforce adult marijuana possession laws, and bar the County Council from accepting any funds for the marijuana eradication program. The initiative is sponsored by Project Peaceful Sky, a local grassroots organization whose name alludes to the disruption of tranquility caused by law enforcement helicopters searching for marijuana.

Alright, potential voters, there you have it. See you at the polls November 4.

read full post

A poll released Wednesday by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) found broad support for eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent offenders and a majority who said they would vote for politicians who acted to end them. The poll results challenge the longstanding conventional wisdom that politicians need to be "tough on crime" to win elections.

federal courthouse, Alexandria, Virginia According to the poll conducted by StrategyOne, an independent public opinion research firm, 78% thought the courts -- not Congress -- should determine how long people convicted of offenses should be imprisoned. Solid majorities also supported ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders (59%) and voting for congressional candidates who would act to end mandatory minimum sentencing (57%).

"Politicians have voted for mandatory minimum sentences so they could appear 'tough on crime' to their constituents. They insist that their voters support these laws, but it's just not true," says Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM. "Republicans and Democrats support change and that should encourage members of Congress to reach across the aisle next year and work together to reform mandatory minimums. Mandatory sentencing reform is not a partisan issue, but an issue about fairness and justice that transcends party lines."

"This poll suggests that a majority of Americans are open to re-examining this issue and moving to a court-driven sentencing model," said Sparky Zivin, research director at StrategyOne.

"I am amazed that such a high number of people even understood the difference between Congress doing sentencing and the courts doing it," said Nora Callahan, executive director of the November Coalition, an anti-prohibitionist group that focuses on freeing federal drug war prisoners. "I didn't think that many people would agree, but it seems that the public has grasped that crime has been politicized. That leads me to believe we will probably see a much greater understanding of what's wrong with our punitive drug laws and what's wrong with prohibition."

The poll results show that while politicians largely remain wedded to the "tough on crime" philosophy and the notion that it helps them win elections, the public is going in a different direction, said Callahan. "It's very dramatic; it's astonishing," she said. "This is very far from what the politicians are thinking; we are seeing that there is a huge gap there."

overcrowded prisons But even on Capitol Hill, there are a few voices calling for radical sentencing reform. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has, since his election in 2006, been leading the charge. Webb has already held two hearings on sentencing and drug policy issues and will hold a third next month.

"America is locking up people at astonishing rates. In the name of 'getting tough on crime,' there are now 2.2 million Americans in federal, state, and local prisons and jails and over 7 million under some form of correction supervision, including probation and parole. We have the largest prison population in the world," said Webb in a statement included in FAMM's press release announcing the poll results. "This growth is not a response to increasing crime rates, but a reliance on prisons and long mandatory sentences as the common response to crime. It is time for America's leadership to realize what the public understands -- our approach is costly, unfair and impractical."

Webb is not alone. Even on the Republican side of the aisle, there are signs of support for sentencing reform. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) is one GOPer who is ready for change.

"Mandatory minimums wreak havoc on a logical system of sentencing guidelines," said Inglis. "Mandatory minimums turn today's hot political rhetoric into the nightmares of many tomorrows for judges and families."

In addition to releasing the poll results Wednesday, FAMM also released a comprehensive new report, Correcting Course: Lessons From the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums, which details how Congress created mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenders in 1951 and repealed them in 1970 because the laws failed to stop drug abuse, addiction and trafficking. The politicians involved in overturning mandatory minimums in 1970 had no problem getting reelected, the report notes.

The report also looked at the rebirth of mandatory minimum sentencing in the fear-ridden 1980s and charts the ways they have been ineffective and counterproductive. According to the report, mandatory minimums:

"Our report and poll show that lawmakers can vote to reform mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses and live to tell the story. Republicans and Democrats alike don't want these laws. They don't work, they cost taxpayers a fortune, and people believe Courts can sentence better than Congress can. Another repeal of mandatory drug sentences isn't just doable, it's doable right now," said Molly Gill, author of the report.

Criminal Justice Policy Foundation head Eric Sterling was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in the mid-1980s, when some of the most draconian mandatory minimum drug laws were passed. He has been working to undo them ever since.

"In 1986, we got stuck with some of the most punitive, least effective criminal sentencing laws ever created, said Sterling. "Mandatory minimums haven't stopped the drug trade. They haven't locked up the big dealers and importers. They're applied to small fries, not kingpins. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to lock up a street-level dealer for 10 years when that money could be spent on treatment, drug courts, or going after the people bringing in boatloads of drugs every year. Getting rid of mandatory minimums is about getting our priorities straight."

"Mandatory minimums are among the worst criminal justice policies ever adopted in this country," said FAMM's Stewart. "They treat all offenders the same, when the most sacred principle of American sentencing law is that punishment should fit the individual and the crime. Repealing these laws isn't impossible -- it's been done before. The next Congress should do it again," she said.

FAMM's report offers two options for dealing with mandatory minimums: Repealing them outright while leaving federal sentencing guidelines in place, which would allow for judicial discretion, or expanding the "safety valve," under which judges can ignore mandatory minimums in some circumstances.

With the US economy and federal budget under unprecedented pressure, and with elections looming that could dramatically alter the political landscape, the time for radical sentencing reform may be drawing nigh, but reformers aren't counting their chickens just yet.

"There could be a window opening," said the November Coalition's Callahan. "I won't start holding my breath until we see how the elections play out, but we're working hard and preparing to work even harder the next four years."

While a poll isn't going to change the mind of Congress, she said, it creates an opening, both with politicians and the public at large. "With these numbers, I can think of a lot of new ways to talk to people," she said. "Activists tend to think that people don't get it, but this poll shows that people do get it, and now people are even more cynical about their leaders. This helps create a definite climate for achieving reform."

read full post

Faced with budgetary pressures and a prison population that has quadrupled in the last 25 years because of harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the Pennsylvania Senate voted last week to approve a bill that would rein in skyrocketing prison costs by moving some prisoners through the system more quickly and diverting others to drug treatment. The House had already approved a similar measure and was expected to pass this bill, perhaps as early as this week.

In what would be the biggest changes in the Keystone State's criminal justice system in years, parole schedules would be accelerated, prisoners currently housed in county jails as they served their sentences would be transferred to newly freed-up state prison beds, and nonviolent drug offenders would be resentenced to drug treatment programs.

Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has supported the changes, and so has the state Corrections Department. The department dealt with slightly more than 10,000 prisoners in the early 1980s; now the system holds more than 46,000. According to the department's most recent monthly inmate population report, nearly all of the state's 32 correctional facilities are at 100% of capacity or above. The department web site does not list the number of prisoners who are drug offenders, but in most states they average between 20% and 25% of inmate populations.

Mandatory minimum laws passed in the early 1990s aimed at violent criminals ended up sending nonviolent offenders away for long sentences, too, Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R-Montgomery) told the Associated Press. "They were important bills, and they dealt with violent offenders, but it's having a broader effect than we anticipated, and it's important that we step forward and acknowledge that," said Greenleaf, a former county prosecutor who chairs the Judiciary Committee.

read full post

[Courtesy of the Crack the Disparity Coalition]

Secure Fairness in Crack Cocaine Sentencing -- Join Lobby Day this Spring

Plans are underway for the second national lobby day for crack cocaine sentencing reform in Washington, DC, hosted by the Crack the Disparity Coalition. An exact date has not yet been set but we invite advocates from around the country to attend the Capitol Hill event this spring. As a participant, you will speak with Members of Congress and their staff about the unjust sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and the need to eliminate it. Training and materials will be provided to you. Look for more details in the December issue of the Crack the Disparity Newsletter.

Home for the Holidays
By Karen Garrison

Karen Garrison is the mother of twin sons sentenced to nearly two decades for a first-time nonviolent crack cocaine offense. Her son Lawrence will soon be released due to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recent changes to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses.

The dream will be a reality for one of my sons who will be home this December. It has been 10 years and Lawrence and Lamont's room has hardly been touched. I covered the beds with heavy plastic. Long ago I gave away their clothes and shoes to shelters and halfway houses, not only because of their weight loss, but clothing goes out of style in a period of ten years. I must now begin to prepare a place for one of my twins, never forgetting that one will remain behind unjust bars. I am buying sheets, towels, and gathering healthy recipes he will enjoy preparing. I will try to purchase new furniture and have already bought the paint for his room. Coming home to those same bunk beds would just make it harder on both of us. Those are the beds he shared with his twin brother Lamont.

Commute Crack Cocaine Sentences in Time for the Holidays
By Jasmine Tyler

This month the Crack the Disparity Coalition launched the "Home for the Holidays" campaign to rally support for individuals serving excessive penalties for crack cocaine offenses who have filed commutation requests with President George W. Bush. The President expressed concern for the crack cocaine sentencing disparity in the early days of his administration. The sentencing disparity "ought to be addressed by making sure the powder-cocaine and the crack-cocaine penalties are the same," he said in 2001. "I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory." Advocates are hoping to capitalize on these sympathies to expedite applications for crack cocaine cases and increase recommendations for clemency.

The campaign is promoting support for clemency applicants seeking relief from the uniquely severe penalties for low-level crack cocaine offenses that subject defendants possessing as little as 5 grams of crack cocaine to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A powder cocaine defendant must be convicted of selling 100 times that amount to trigger the same sentence. Since Congress has yet to act to alleviate this disparity, advocates' focus this fall is to ensure that those who are seeking clemency do not go unheard.

Teen Profiles Crack Cocaine Reformer: Pamela Alexander - A Profile in Courage
By Laura S., Cincinatti, OH

This article was reprinted courtesy of TeenInk.com, a nonprofit, national teen magazine, book series, and website devoted entirely to teenage writing and art.

On December 11, 2007, members of the United States Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to make a groundbreaking change in one of their policies. They decided that the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine crimes and those involving powder cocaine was exceedingly unjust and prejudiced. With crack users being predominantly black and powder cocaine users predominantly white, the Sentencing Commission judged the much harsher sentences for crack users to be racially biased at their core. The Commission therefore has allowed thousands currently imprisoned for crack cocaine violations to appeal their sentences before federal judges, in an effort to shorten these sentences where feasible. While this represents a major step toward racial equality and justice, one uncelebrated, independent woman put her career on the line for this same issue - seventeen years ago.

Petition President Bush

Join citizens concerned about the harsh mandatory minimum sentences for low-level crack cocaine offenses by telling President George Bush and Pardon Attorney Ronald Rodgers to expedite and give special consideration to commutation applicants serving excessive sentences for crack cocaine. Sign a petition by clicking here.

Save the Date

September 24-27, 2008: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation 38th Annual Legislative Conference, Washington, D.C.

September 26-September 28, 2008: Critical Resistance 10th Anniversary Celebration and International Conference and Strategy Session, Oakland, CA

October 19-22, 2008: International Community Corrections Association 16th Annual International Research Conference, "Risk, Resilience and Reentry," St. Louis, MO

Spring 2009: Crack the Disparity Lobby Day, Washington, D.C.

Media Attention

Daily Press Editorial on Equalization of Crack and Powder Cocaine

Sun-Sentinel Coverage on Prison Term Reductions for Cocaine Cases

Kansas City Star Coverage on Former Kansas City Royal Baseball Player Willie Mays Aikens

The Crack the Disparity Coalition includes the American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Break the Chains, Drug Policy Alliance, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Open Society Policy Center, Restoring Dignity, Inc., Students for Sensible Drug Policy, The Sentencing Project, and United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society.

read full post

EMBARGOED UNTIL:                                                                 

Contact:  Monica Pratt Raffanel, (678) 261-8118 or (202) 822-6700                                                                               

Press teleconference today! Wednesday, September 24 at 11 a.m. ET

Dial In Number: (800) 593-9034

Passcode:  FAMM (3266)

NEW POLL: Americans Oppose Mandatory Minimums,

Will Vote for Candidates Who Feel the Same

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? A new poll released today by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) shows widespread support for ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses and that Americans will vote for candidates who feel the same way. 

·         Fully 78 percent of Americans (nearly eight in 10) agree that courts ? not Congress ? should determine an individual?s prison sentence. 

·         Six in 10 (59 percent) oppose mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders.

·         A majority of Americans (57 percent) polled said they would likely vote for a candidate for Congress who would eliminate all mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes.

?Politicians have voted for mandatory minimum sentences so they could appear ?tough on crime? to their constituents. They insist that their voters support these laws, but it?s just not true,? says Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM.  ?Republicans and Democrats support change and that should encourage members of Congress to reach across the aisle next year and work together to reform mandatory minimums.  Mandatory sentencing reform is not a partisan issue, but an issue about fairness and justice that transcends party lines.? 

During a time of financial crisis and uncertainty in the United States, reviewing current criminal justice policies and reforming mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders is an option that Democratic and Republican lawmakers are considering.  Although neither is endorsing FAMM?s poll or report, Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) are both concerned about America?s prison and sentencing system.

?America is locking up people at astonishing rates. In the name of ?getting tough on crime,? there are now 2.2 million Americans in federal, state, and local prisons and jails and over 7 million under some form of correction supervision, including probation and parole. We have the largest prison population in the world,? says Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.), who is chairing a symposium on criminal justice and prison issues in October.  ?This growth is not a response to increasing crime rates, but a reliance on prisons and long mandatory sentences as the common response to crime. It is time for America?s leadership to realize what the public understands ? our approach is costly, unfair and impractical.?

?Mandatory minimums wreak havoc on a logical system of sentencing guidelines,? says Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.). ?Mandatory minimums turn today?s hot political rhetoric into the nightmares of many tomorrows for judges and families.?

"This poll suggests that a majority of Americans are open to re-examining this issue and moving to a court-driven sentencing model,? said Sparky Zivin, Research Director at StrategyOne.

The poll bolsters the findings of FAMM?s comprehensive new report, Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums, which describes how Congress repealed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses in 1970 ? and had no trouble getting reelected. 

?Our report and poll show that lawmakers can vote to reform mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses and live to tell the story.  Republicans and Democrats alike don?t want these laws.  They don?t work, they cost taxpayers a fortune, and people believe Courts can sentence better than Congress can.  Another repeal of mandatory drug sentences isn?t just doable, it?s doable right now,? says Molly Gill, author of Correcting Course. 

The report details how Congress created mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenders in 1951 and repealed them in 1970 because the laws failed to stop drug abuse, addiction and trafficking. It also finds that after 20 years of experience, current mandatory minimums have failed as badly as those enacted in the 1950s.  Correcting Course concludes that mandatory minimum sentences:

? Have not discouraged drug use in the United States.

? Have not reduced drug trafficking.

? Have created soaring state and federal corrections costs.

? Impose substantial indirect costs on families by imprisoning spouses, parents, and breadwinners for lengthy periods.

? Are not applied evenly, disproportionately impacting minorities and resulting in vastly different sentences for equally blameworthy offenders.

? Undermine federalism by turning state-level offenses into federal crimes.

? Undermine separation of powers by usurping judicial discretion.

Eric Sterling, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee when mandatory sentences were enacted, says, ?In 1986, we got stuck with some of the most punitive, least effective criminal sentencing laws ever created. Mandatory minimums haven?t stopped the drug trade.  They haven?t locked up the big dealers and importers.  They?re applied to small fries, not kingpins.  It?s a waste of taxpayer dollars to lock up a street-level dealer for 10 years when that money could be spent on treatment, drug courts, or going after the people bringing in boatloads of drugs every year.  Getting rid of mandatory minimums is about getting our priorities straight.?

Correcting Course includes comprehensive strategies for how Congress can repeal these ineffective laws today and better reflect the popular attitude among Americans, as brought out in the findings of the poll. 

?Mandatory minimums are among the worst criminal justice policies ever adopted in this country.  They treat all offenders the same, when the most sacred principle of American sentencing law is that punishment should fit the individual and the crime. Repealing these laws isn?t impossible ? it?s been done before.  The next Congress should do it again,? says FAMM founder and president Julie Stewart.

FAMM?s poll was conducted by the independent public opinion research firm StrategyOne.  The survey was conducted by telephone between July 31 and August 3, 2008 with 1,000 adults randomly selected across the United States.  The margin of sampling error for the poll is plus or minus 3.1 percent for 95 out of 100 cases.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. For more information on FAMM, visit www.famm.org or call Monica Pratt Raffanel at 678-261-8118.

###

read full post

George Michael?s latest drug arrest has reduced Ross Clark at The Times Online to a sputtering mess. In an embarrassing editorial entitled It's just as wrong to use drugs as it is to sell them, Clark compares drug use to child pornography and calls for casual users to serve long sentences:
With stolen goods, illegal weapons and child pornography, the law is clear: the user is as guilty as the supplier. The police didn't let Gary Glitter off with a little rap on the knuckles and the rest of us didn't shake our heads and say: ?Poor Gary, how sad that he has fallen victim to these evil porn dealers.?

He was prosecuted, quite rightly, on the basis that those who provide the market for child porn are implicated in its production. So why then do such different attitudes persist in the case of drugs? If it is wrong to produce and trade drugs, then it is equally wrong to use them.

Clark goes on explain that drug addiction doesn?t happen to intelligent people:
?Among drug users and drug peddlers alike, there are, of course, sometimes mitigating circumstances. If you have been brought up by drug addicts, beaten and abused, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise if you grow up with a somewhat confused sense of right and wrong.

But none of this applies to George Michael, who is intelligent enough to know that taking crack is not just an issue of personal liberty: there is a clear association between use of the drug and propensity to commit violent crime. If caught with illegal drugs he should be treated to no less a punishment than if he had smuggled them into the country and sold them on the streets.

Dude, chill out. No one wants to spend $250,000 imprisoning a guy for $20 worth of dope. I?m sure you had fun writing this, but do you actually agree with your own idea? Did you know that it costs money to keep people in jail? If you hate drug users so much, do you really want to pay for all their food and clothes and healthcare for 10 years every time we catch one? No you don?t, so shut up before we lock George Michael in your pantry and make you take care him forever.

read full post