An Unfair Drug WarEssay Preview: An Unfair Drug WarReport this essayDrug production and drug dealing today has become a substantial source of revenue. Whether for making up budget deficits or for the enrichment of certain individuals, population groups, firms or even countries, drugs are distributed worldwide. Drugs also involve economically marginalized sectors of the population, such as peasant producers or some small-scale drug dealers, criminal organizations or certain closely-knit sectors of society in the world of business or State institutions. The recycling of profits is central to the economy and society in terms of land, real estate and financial assets. It directly involves businesses and financial institutions. The social transformations stemming from the development of the drug economy reveal a growth in the sectors of illegal activity. These issues, which now concern all parts of the world, take different shape from one region and location to another.
Politically, the issue of drugs is extremely significant. The War on Drugs has been a long and expensive fight to decrease the usage and sales of drugs. Although politics have struggled to end the large usage, it seems as if the war is a waste of time. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being poured into this Drug War and it seems to be very ineffective.
The history of the non-medical use of drugs in this country dates back to the 1900s. During this time people were far more addicted to drugs than today (Tackling). This was because of the high dosage of morphine used by doctors during medical operations. The first criminal law at the Federal level that illegalized the non-medical use of drugs was the Harrison Act in 1914. This law applied to drugs such as morphine, opium, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. There was no mention of drugs such as marijuana, amphetamines or any hallucinogenic drugs that are used today (Tackling). The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was created to prohibit the use of marijuana (Tackling). In 1956 the Daniel Act was passed to increase the penalty for possession of marijuana or any other drugs. The mandatory minimum for sale of marijuana in Virginia was twenty years; which was higher than sentencing for murder and rape. In no part were you eligible for parole, probation, or a suspended sentence (Tackling).
In 1969, the Dangerous Substances Act gave up the effort to define narcotic drugs and classified all drugs by their medical use and their potential for abuse. This includes all drugs except alcohol and nicotine. The 1969 act also lowered penalties in every offense category (Tackling). The 1980s was believed to be a dramatic increase in drug usage and drug sales. During this time, the War on Drugs was established by President George H Bush. Law after law was created to raise penalties and by the 1990s, 30% of the minority population of the City of Baltimore, who were male and between the ages of 20 and 29, were under court supervision for drugs (Tackling).
Thomas Eddy was among the first to be sentenced under the Rockefeller drug laws (Marks). He was arrested in 1979 for selling two ounces of cocaine. He only expected to get a couple of years but instead the sophomore at State University of New York, Binghamton, a National Merit Scholar, got 15 years to life (Marks). He was granted clemency after 13-1/2 years. Eddy is now about to earn his law degree and is determined to fight the mandatory-minimum drug laws. “What destroyed me was not drugs, it was a mandatory-minimum sentence,” he says.
In 2001 the Louisiana Legislature overwhelmingly approved a legislation that was designed to override the state’s tough drug laws. This legislation cut drug sentences, repealed mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent crimes, and created a “risk-review” panel to review the sentences of certain inmates to see if they should receive a pardon parole (Louisiana). As the state with the highest per capita incarceration rate in the nation, Louisiana could not afford to continue enforcing their strict drug laws. However, Louisiana is not the only state reducing drug sentences. New York, Connecticut, and Washington, are also considering similar drug sentencing reforms.
The History of drugs has led to an even more serious inquiry today: Should Drug Dealers receive lighter sentencing? That is the question that both the government and the citizens are trying to answer. Although it seems that drug dealers should be penalized harshly for their actions, I disagree. In 1986 Congress enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which force judges to deliver fixed sentences to individuals convicted of a crime, regardless of culpability or other factors. Federal mandatory drug sentences are determined based on three factors: the type of drug, weight of the drug mixture, and the number of prior convictions. Judges are unable to consider other important factors such as the offenders role, motivation, and the likelihood of recidivism (the ability to do it again). Only by providing the prosecutor with “substantial assistance”, (information that aids the government in prosecuting other offenders) may defendants reduce their mandatory sentences. This creates huge incentives for people charged with drug offenses to provide false information in order to receive a shorter sentence.
Although Congress intended mandatory sentences to target “king pins” and managers in drug distribution networks, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers (Mandatory). This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions – the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders, such as drug mules or street dealers, often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime. Furthermore, mandatory minimums have worsened racial and gender disparities and have contributed greatly toward prison overcrowding (Mandatory). Mandatory minimum sentencing is costly and unjust. Mandatory sentencing does not eliminate sentencing disparities; instead it shifts decision-making authority from judges to prosecutors, who operate without accountability (Mandatory). Mandatory minimums fail to punish high-level dealers and are responsible for sending record numbers of women and people of color to prison. More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 is due to drug convictions (Mandatory). In 1986, the year Congress enacted federal mandatory drug sentences;
The sentencing of people without any significant criminal record is a cruel, unjust, and unnecessarily harsh punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences were not designed to deter, but have served as a tool that has made our criminal justice system a disgrace. Mandatory minimums have contributed significantly to jail overcrowding, incarceration rates that are worse than that in other major developed nations, and to the prison population (Mandatory). It is unconscionable that in a country so racially gerrymandered, that even after decades to incarcerate and incarcerate people of color and prevent the possibility of returning to jail, mandatory minimum sentences continue to make a difference.
For further background on the debate over mandating mandatory minimums, see here.
Mandatory Minimums, or Prisons – the Truth and Politics
In an important decision, District of Columbia Circuit Justice Judge James G. Schapiro sided with the states seeking to implement mandatory minimums, and did so in the manner outlined in his decision for the 4th Circuit Court, which had already ruled against the Texas legislature to require a minimum sentence for drug possession and distribution (Texas v. Taylor). In the ruling for the 4th Circuit, Judge Schapiro set a maximum sentence of 21 months in prison; in the decision upholding mandatory minimums for drug possession and distribution in the states that had enacted those laws, “the federal government effectively took a direct hit by the fact that states have enacted them and it’s been very hard for judges to get their rulings,” Judge Schapiro writes:
“Today we see this case. A state court in a district of the United States has issued an order to provide for the mandatory minimum sentencing of 21 months (18 years) of imprisonment in federal court for convicted marijuana possession. This court’s decision is consistent with the Constitution’s requirement that a minimum sentence be imposed for the violation of any provision of the Constitution that is unlawful and contrary to the Constitution.”
A few sentences are just that: sentences. Sentences. Sentences.
In this ruling, Judge Schapiro decided that federal courts were justified in imposing mandatory minimum sentencing under Section 2806 of Title 18 of the United States Code; in his decision, Judge Schapiro also decided that the federal government does not have authority to impose penalties of 20 years in federal court for first-degree sexual abuse (Section 2806, Subsequent Diaspora Criminal History). “The District of Columbia circuit did not have the authority to impose the same sentence, given its history. Because of this history, it is unclear whether [the state courts] have jurisdiction to impose the 20 years’ sentence required for possession of cocaine and other controlled substances under Section 2806.”
Judge Schapiro explained that the court believes the federal Government’s position that mandatory minimums are unjust is inconsistent with Article II, Section 11 of the Defense of Law. He acknowledged that the federal government has jurisdiction over all courts in the District of Columbia, but he didn’t think it did so “by force of law, by force of habit,” because it does not have the power to impose mandatory minimum sentences (Section 28.1 of Title 42, United States CODE).
“The District of Columbia circuit’s view is that a state’s approach to enforcing a national offense is based upon its own law and may not be contrary to federal law,” Judge Schapiro writes. “[W]e respectfully agree that the District of Columbia Circuit