Your Aug. 14 editorial “A policy gap that demands closing,” regarding the sentencing disparity for various cocaine dealers, poses an obvious question that must be answered before we can intelligently deal with the issue.
You note that the sentencing guidelines punish crack-cocaine dealers 100 times as severely as powder-cocaine dealers. You also indicate that this disparity is unwarranted as the drug is equally insidious in either form. Having read of this issue on numerous occasions, I am waiting in vain for someone to explain why in the world anyone would continue to market the crack version.
If you have a choice between alternate courses of action and you know that both courses would result in the same “reward” but, if caught, one course will be punished by a slap on the wrist while the other will earn you 10 years in prison, I cannot understand why any sane person would choose the latter. Frankly, anyone that dumb probably should be taken off the streets on general principle.
Now we find that not only are people by the hundreds choosing the dumb course, but they apparently have a great lobbyist. They have recruited several members of Congress to champion their right not only to be criminal but also to be criminally stupid.
Some people have claimed that this is a race issue since an inordinate number of blacks are being sentenced for the more serious offense. No one is suggesting that the blacks in prison are innocent, merely that they are numerous. Until the reason for the crack dealers’ actions are explained, we must conclude that the race card should not be played in this game.
The penalty legislation was passed before the criminal acts were committed, or else it would not be applied. Thus, to believe that the statute was racist, one must believe that Congress knew in advance that blacks would ignore the law and would choose to commit the act that would be punished most severely.
Congress, reacting to a problem that afflicts all communities, has devised a program to counter the problem. Right or wrong, it is the law of the land. We now have an attempt to nullify this program, not to benefit the community but to ease the pain of our street criminals. If we are going to grant drug dealers the line-item veto to pick and choose the penalties that they are willing to pay, we should at least require that they explain themselves. What is the overwhelming attraction for crack? Perhaps if we understood, we could deal with it.
We might also ask our congressmen to explain why we should shift our emphasis from deterrence to compassion for the pusher. Is any community well served when its congressman insists that drug dealers are victims of racism? Will the promise of equitable sentencing convince dealers to go straight? Will users stop buying if we assure them that all pushers receive equal protection? Will your community throw a welcome-home party for the dealers whose sentences are reduced?
If you continue to view the sentencing disparity as a problem, consider this solution: Stop selling the crack! End of problem. Now, let Congress get to work rebuilding our communities.
