Who is the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition?

Our mission is to reverse the trend of mass incarceration in Colorado. We are a coalition of nearly 7,000 individual members and over 100 faith and community organizations who have united to stop perpetual prison expansion in Colorado through policy and sentence reform.

Our chief areas of interest include drug policy reform, women in prison, racial injustice, the impact of incarceration on children and families, the problems associated with re-entry and stopping the practice of using private prisons in our state.

If you would like to be involved please go to our website and become a member.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Justices Widen Sentencing Power for Federal Judges

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — The Supreme Court today enhanced the power of federal district judges to use their discretion in arriving at sentences in criminal cases as it upheld a relatively light sentence imposed on a crack cocaine distributor.

By 7 to 2, the court held that “the cocaine guidelines, like all other guidelines, are advisory only,” in the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote for the majority. She cited a 2005 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Booker, that “mandatory guidelines” in federal cases gave judges too much fact-finding responsibility, and that the guidelines should be “advisory” instead.

The majority concluded today that a district judge in Virginia acted properly in April 2005 when he refused to follow federal sentencing guidelines calling for far harsher penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine than they do for dealing in the powder form of the drug. In a nutshell, the effect of this ruling is to give sentencing judges considerably more discretion in criminal cases.

In the Booker decision of 2005, the court did not spell out clearly what it meant by “advisory,” so there has been considerable confusion throughout the criminal justice system.

In a second sentencing case, also decided today by 7 to 2, the court upheld the three years’ probation imposed upon Brian M. Gall, who was part of a ring that sold the illegal drug Ecstasy while in college in Iowa.

The trial judge concluded that prison would do him no good, since he had finished college and turned his life around. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, found that the judge had not sufficiently justified his departure from the guidelines, which called for three years in prison. Today, the Supreme Court said the trial judge was right.

The disparities between prison terms for dealing in crack and for peddling powdered cocaine have for years angered some lawyers and civil rights advocates, who have argued that the crack-cocaine penalties unfairly punish black defendants more severely than they do whites. Crack is much more common in poor urban areas than the powder favored by white users, and black people make up 80 percent of those sentenced for crack-dealing.

Two decades ago, when the effects of the two forms of cocaine were less well understood, there was a collective assumption that crack cocaine was far deadlier, although subsequent studies have shown that they “have the same physiological and psychotropic effects,” as Justice Ginsburg put it.

But the United States Sentencing Commission, created in the mid-1980’s to recommend appropriate federal prison terms and lessen wildly disparate sentences in cases of similar circumstances, provided punishments for crack cocaine that were far more severe than those associated with the powder — the same five-year minimum for possessing 5 grams of crack as for 100 times as much powdered cocaine, for instance.

In fact, the sentencing commission recently issued new guidelines that will reduce the average sentence for cocaine possession to 8 years 10 months, from 10 years 1 month. The panel is to meet on Tuesday in Washington to consider whether the reduction should be made retroactive. If the answer is “yes,” some 19,000 prisoners could have their sentences reduced.

Even before the new guidelines, more and more federal judges had been rebelling over the crack v. powder disparity. One of them was Judge Raymond A. Jackson, who refused to sentence Derrick Kimbrough of Norfolk to the 19-to-22-year sentence called for in the guidelines after Mr. Kimbrough pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing more than 50 grams of crack.

“Ridiculous” and “clearly inappropriate” Judge Jackson said of the guidelines as they supposedly applied to the case of Mr. Kimbrough, who the judge noted had no prior felony convictions, was gainfully employed and had served honorably in the Marine Corps in the Persian Gulf war. The judge sentenced him to 15 years, the lightest term possible under the statutory minimums.

But the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, rejected Judge Jackson’s reasoning and ordered him to resentence the defendant. The appeals court, differing with appeals judges in other circuits who had found that sentencing judges did have considerable discretion, said it was “unreasonable” for Judge Jackson to have departed from the guidelines just because he disagreed with the disparity between punishments linked to crack and powdered cocaine.

But Justice Ginsburg said the Fourth Circuit was wrong, and that the sentence imposed by Judge Jackson “should survive appellate inspection.” She wrote that the sentencing judge had “properly homed in on the particular circumstances of Kimbrough’s case.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were the dissenters today in Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330. Justice Thomas wrote that, in declaring the guidelines only advisory two years ago, the Supreme Court had come up with a remedy “far broader than necessary to correct constitutional error.”

“Because the court’s decisions in this area are necessarily grounded in policy considerations rather than law, I respectfully dissent,” Justice Thomas wrote.

The 100-to-1 ratio in sentences for crack and powder cocaine originated in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Several bills have been introduced in Congress to address the disparities between sentences for crack and for powdered cocaine.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

 “胡一刀,曲池喝花酒,天樞!苗人鳳酒店喝酒 ,地倉,合谷!個嘶啞的嗓子低沉地叫暑假打工 著。叫聲中充滿著怨毒寒假打工 和憤怒,語聲從酒店小姐 牙齒縫中迸出來,似是酒店兼職 千年万年、永恒的咒禮服店 ,每一個字音上涂著血和仇恨。 突突突突四酒店經紀 聲響,四道金光酒店兼差,四枝金鏢連珠發出,射向兩塊木牌。木牌的酒店 正面反面都繪著一個全身人酒店經紀人 形,一塊上繪的是個濃髯粗豪的大漢,旁注“胡一刀”三字;另一塊上繪的是個瘦長漢子,旁注“苗人鳳”三字,人形上書明人体周身穴酒店現領。木牌下面接有一柄,兩個身手矯捷的壯漢各持一牌,在練武廳中滿廳游走東北角一張椅子中坐著酒店經紀爆米花個五十來歲的白發婆婆,口中喊著胡一刀或苗人鳳穴道的名稱。一個二十來歲的英俊少年勁裝結束,鏢囊中台北酒店經紀帶著十几枝金鏢,听得那婆婆喊出穴道名稱,右手打工揚,就是一道金光射出,釘向木牌。兩個持牌壯漢頭戴鋼絲罩子兼差上身穿了厚棉襖再罩牛皮背心,唯恐少年失了准頭,金鏢招呼到他們身上。兩人竄高伏低,酒店打工擺木牌,要讓他酒店上班不易打中。 大廳外的窗口,伏著一個少女假日打工一個青年漢子。兩人在窗紙上挖破了兩個小孔,各用台北酒店經紀右眼湊著向里偷窺。兩人見那少年身手不凡,發鏢甚准,不由酒店pt 互相對望了一眼,臉上酒店pt都露出訝异的神色。
  天空黑沉酒店應酬 沉的堆滿了烏云。大雨傾盆而下,夾著一陣陣的電閃雷轟,勢道嚇人粉味。黃豆大的雨點打在地下,直濺到窗外兩酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL少年男女酒店經濟 的身上。 們都身披油布雨衣,對廳上的事很感好奇酒店經濟再湊眼到窗洞上去看時,只听得那婆婆打工兼差道:“准頭還可將就,就是沒勁儿,今日酒店經紀就練到這里。”說著慢慢禮服店站起身來。