Sarah Petrucci's History Page

The Fair Sentencing

What is The Fair Sentencing Act?

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was an Act of Congress signed into federal law on August 3, 2010, by US President Barack Obama. Its goal was to decrease the inequality between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine required to trigger certain crime punishments. By signing this it went from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act:

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reflected Congress's view that crack cocaine was a more harmful drug than powder cocaine. More recent research by the (USSC) United States Sentencing Commission has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the sentencing between the two is unfair. The 100:1 ratio was a result of being racially biased and contributing to an excessive number of African Americans being sentenced for crack cocaine offenses. An act to reduce the disparity has been introduced since the mid-1990s, which caused the signing of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Before the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possessing crack cocaine faced much more severe penalties than those in possession of powder cocaine. While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a person holding powder cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he or she held five hundred grams. Similarly, those carrying ten grams of crack cocaine faced a ten-year mandatory sentence, while possession of one thousand grams of powder cocaine was required for the same sentence to be imposed.

At that time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the high ratio:

crack cocaine was more addictive than powder cocaine;

crack cocaine was associated with violent crime;

youth were more likely to be drawn to crack cocaine;

crack cocaine was inexpensive, and therefore more likely to be consumed in large quantities;

and use of crack cocaine by pregnant mothers was dangerous for their unborn children.

A study released in 1997 examined the addictive nature of both crack and powder cocaine and concluded that they were equally addictive. The study explored other reasons why crack is viewed as more addictive and theorized, The Los Angeles Times commented, "There was never any scientific basis for the disparity, just panic as the crack epidemic swept the nation's cities."

Biased Sentencing:

The sentencing disparity between these two drug offenses is perceived by a number of commentators as racially biased. In 1995, the USSC concluded that the inequality produced a "racial imbalance in federal prisons and led to more severe sentences for low-level crack dealers than for wholesale suppliers of powder cocaine. ... As a result, thousands of people – mostly African Americans – have received disproportionately harsh prison sentences."

In 2002,"found that the ratio was created based upon a misperception of the dangers of crack cocaine, which had since been proven to have a less drastic effect than previously thought." In 2009, the USSC introduced figures stating that no class of drug is as racially skewed as crack in terms of numbers of offenses. According to the data, 79% of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders were black, while only 10% were white and 10% were Hispanic. The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine convictions, in contrast, were as follows: 17% of these offenders were white, 28% were black, and 53% were Hispanic. Combined with a 115-month average imprisonment for crack offenses, compared with an average of 87 months for cocaine offenses, the sentencing disparity results in more African-Americans spending more time in the prison system.