Rep. Maxine Waters is at it again with the introduction of H. R. 1466: Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009. The purpose of the bill is to re-direct federal resources to tracking and prosecuting the big fish of the drug trade while easing some of the pressure on low level drug offenders. Currently, federal sentencing guidelines focus on drug weight and constricts the court's discretion in sentencing. 21 U.S.C 960(b) mandates harsh mandatory minimums based on drug weight and ties the hands of the court. The law was intended to create fairness in sentencing by tying sentence length directly to the seriousness of the offense. The innovation of crack cocaine inverted the result. A low level drug runner would receive a higher sentence than someone with a comparable or greater amount of cocaine because cocaine in crack form is heavier than cocaine in powder form.
The argument against Rep. Waters’s position is that the law should be changed, but not in the manner she proposes. Instead of removing mandatory minimum sentences Congress should alter the law to impose mandatory minimums equally based on street value instead of weight. By focusing on street value the disproportionality problem would be solved and the disincentives to bring narcotics into the U.S. would remain in place.
A third approach championed by libertarians, the extreme left and others is to end the War on Drugs because it needlessly impinges personal freedom and, more importantly, it cannot be won. The money spent on drug interdiction and prosecution is better spent elsewhere.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
About Me
- JFKU-Berkeley Law Library
- The Berkeley campus of JFKU Law School opened in the Fall of 2008. Our focus is public interest law. The library is open Monday through Thursday, from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m. and open 10 a.m until 5 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
3 comments:
The disproportionate results from a weight based system is clearly A problem that Waters' proposal would solve, but her bill seems to be an attempt to address more than just that issue. She wants a focus on chasing suppliers and to stop burdening the courts and jails with low level sellers or enthusiatic end users. Replacing the "weight" guideline with a "street value" guideline just replaces one random (and mandatory) sentencing test with another.
The issue of how "drug war" money should be spent aside, Waters' bill can also be read to question whether mandatory sentencing guidelines work to alleviate disparities in sentencing in similar crimes. She is suggesting the "fix" of mandatory sentencing just does not work, at least as to lower level players in the drug trade. And I think she is likely correct (though -- full disclosure -- I am distrustful of mandatory rules for sentencing in general as even similar sounding crimes often are very distinguishable in their harm on society).
There would be no alleviation on the prision system or on the courts if the legislature changed the sentencing guidlines to reflect the "street value" instead of the "weight" because the two guidlines are the exact same thing. The weight of the drugs equal the street value of the drugs. They are one in the same.
The crack cocain analogy fails because many controlled substances are partially or entirely made of legal substances. She is trying to establish that the present mandatory sentencing guideline is flawed because the law fails to take into consideration that crack cocain is only 50% cocain and therefore the offender is being sentenced to a term that reflects the entire weight of the crack and not the cocain weight of the crack. Under this same argument one could say that a person caught with crystal meth should not serve anytime because the drug was made from legal components found in stores. This argument fails as well because you couldnt have the controlled substance in its disiered and addictive form without these other legal ingredients. The legal components become illegal when used to create a controlled substance and therefore should be included into the weight or street value that determines the sentence.
Just legalize it and save the most money. Tax it like you do so well Mr. Government and make it and distribute it yourself.
The bill true strength is the elimination of mandatory sentencing putting the law/justice back into the courts. Some of the people sentence to 20 yrs are nonviolent criminals. Are are not dealing but just growing. Community service would be more appropriate then 20 yrs lock up. Let your time equal your crime. Mandatory sentence makes justice leave the room.
Post a Comment