{
  "id": "97-743",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-743",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100717,
      "date": "2002-04-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:11:26.323941",
      "title": "Federal Cocaine Sentencing: Legal Issues",
      "summary": "The Anti-Drug Abuse Act provided mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for\npossession\nwith intent to distribute powder and crack cocaine. In this statute Congress established a quantitative\n100-to-1 sentence ratio between the two ( i.e ., it takes 100 times as much powder cocaine\nas crack\ncocaine to trigger the same sentence). Under this distinction, a person convicted of possession with\nintent to distribute a pound of powder cocaine (453.6 grams) would serve considerably less time in\na federal prison than one convicted of possession with intent to distribute 5 grams of crack. The\nUnited States Sentencing Commission incorporated the ratio into its generally binding sentencing\nguidelines.\n  Since enactment, it has become apparent that the incidence of this sentencing differential falls\ndisproportionately on African-American defendants. The disparate impact has been attacked without\ngreat success on several judicial fronts. Equal protection and due process arguments have floundered\non the finding that the distinction was not motivated by racial animus or discriminatory intent, but\nrather was related to the legitimate government purpose of protecting the public against the greater\ndangers of crack cocaine. Thus far, defendants have encountered similar difficulties proving the\nrequisite corrupt motivation to establish selective prosecution or sentencing entrapment defenses. \nFurther, the federal appellate courts have found that the stiff minimum sentences for offenses\ninvolving crack cocaine are rational and not disproportionate to the seriousness of those offenses. \nConsequently, they do not offend the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. \nAnd the courts have been no more receptive to pleas to mitigate the disparate impact by departing\nfrom the severity of the sentencing guidelines.\n  Instructed to study the situation, the Sentencing Commission promulgated amendments that\nwould equate crack and powder cocaine for sentencing purposes and recommended that Congress\ndrop the 100-to-1 ratio from its own mandatory penalties. Congress rejected both the amendments\nand the suggestion for equation, but directed the Commission to re-examine the issue and report back\nrecommendations reflecting more moderate adjustments. The Commission subsequently\nrecommended that the penalties be adjusted to a ratio somewhere between 1-to-1 2/3 and 1-to 15. \nThe Commission has made no further recommendations.\n  Legislative efforts to reduce or eliminate the disparity have thus far come to impasse over two\nissues: (1) the appropriate ratio and (2) whether and to what extent crack penalties should be reduced\nor powder penalties enhanced to achieve the proper balance.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-743",
          "sha1": "69d789d325b169557e36ebb1153e5a9835e34ef7",
          "filename": "files/20020425_97-743_69d789d325b169557e36ebb1153e5a9835e34ef7.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020425_97-743_69d789d325b169557e36ebb1153e5a9835e34ef7.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}