Disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing alleviated.

In October, the United States Supreme Court began its 2007-2008 session. One of the issues at hand this year was the major disparity (100 to 1) between the sentencing guidelines for being caught with crack cocaine versus that of powder cocaine. It seems that for a while, the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines that Judges had to follow when sentencing offenders required much harsher punishment for those cases involving crack cocaine, of which 86% involved black defendants, were MUCH higher than those mandatory guidelines for powdered cocaine convictions, which has a higher percentage of white offenders.

The case came to issue when a Judge in Norfolk, VA refused to give defendant Derrick Kimbrough at least the minimum sentence for being found with both powder and crack cocaine. With the two cocaine offenses added to a handgun offense, Kimbrough would have been required to serve a mandatory minimum of 19 to 22 years, but Judge Raymond A. Jackson decided this was a ridiculous sentence and sentenced him to 15 years in total.

The main issue at question was the guidelines for sentencing crack cocaine offenders. The federal sentencing guidelines calls for a prison term of 10 years for a crime involving 50 grams or more of crack. To get the same sentence for powder cocaine, one would have to have over 5,000 grams (100 times the amount of crack cocaine).

After sentencing, though, the 4th circuit court rejected Judge Jackson's decision stating that "had no right to ignore the tougher guidelines simply because he disagreed with the policy decision made by Congress to punish crack offenses more harshly."

Well, the issue came before the Supreme Court and while they could not change the sentencing guidelines for various offenses, they were able to deem that such Federal sentencing guidelines could only be viewed as only "advisory", allowing judges to give lighter sentences for any crime, should they see fit. The greatest benefit of the decision is that it applies retroactively, allowing all offenders to appeal their sentences again before a judge.

The 7-2 decision can be viewed online at the Supreme Court's website (PDF).