Helmet - Aftertaste
This might be the defining disappointing album of my music listening life so far. I think Prince and Lou Reed both put out some shit when they were trying to get out of their contracts and this is no different.
I'm not bowling tonight. I am too worn out right now. Meredith has a rehearsal anyway.
I have a meeting later today with one of my group mates. I'm not looking forward to it. It's not because of my group mate, it's because I don't like meetings.
Why are the federal sentencing guidelines for crack so fucked up? Why does possession of 1 gram of crack get the same punishment as 100 grams of powder cocaine? They're fucking identical. The high from crack is more intense, but short, while the high from the powder when snorted is less intense and slightly longer in duration. There's no real evidence that crack is more addictive than the powder. Also, where did the "crack baby" myth come from? Crack has a much smaller impact on a developing fetus than does alchohol. The traits associated with a "crack baby" are shockingly similar to the traits which we associate with impoverished, malnurished mothers.
posted by Editor @ 2:09 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Dude, black people use crack. Don't you get it? Powdered coke is that harmless stuff super models and investment bankers use, no harm, no foul. But black people use crack, so it's got to be dangerous, right?
Yes, the guidelines are fucked up. Thankfully, they are only advisory now. Not clear yet how closely judges will continue to follow them.
I thought that there was a recent court ruling that said that the judges couldn't ignore the 100:1 ratio. It seems to eliminate discretion. The 20:1 ratio proposed by the USSC would actually increase racial disparity in sentencing because they would lower the powder levels that trigger minimums in order to lower the ratio. Now you'll get most crack users and more of the poor powder users.
I took Criminal Procedure before the case came down, but my understanding of US v Booker was that the Federal Guidelines cannot be mandatory because that denies a defendant his 6th Amendment right to jury trial. They are basically advisory and judges should use them as a guide. The question, as I understand it, is now how advisory are they? If a judge follows them, can he be overturned? If he refuses to follow them, is there a presumption against the sentence he hands down? These things are all up in the air, I think and since I'm not doing criminal law, I don't know anything about the 100:1 versus 20:1 ratio. If you've got the case name I can look around for some commentary.
US v Eura. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/054437.P.pdf
So this looks like some serious hair-splitting just from cursory reading. A trial judge doesn't have to impose the USSC guidelines, but he can't make up a different ratio than the one provided by the guidelines either. So the trial judge can decide to impose a different sentence if it wants, but only based on the individual circumstances of the individual defendant before it. If the court wants to impose an actual ratio, it has to use the one required by Congress in the USSC. It makes some sense, but a trial judge can just list all of the individual factors in every case and go ahead and impose a 20:1 ration in every case by claim that it is based on individual factors in the specific case. A distinction without a difference in results if you ask me, but I really don't follow criminal law.
Post a Comment
<< Home