| |
 |
| June 25th, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Peter Carr (202) 224-9854,
Jared Whitley (202) 224-5251 |
|
Printable Version |
|
|
FLOOR SPEECH: INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIRNESS IN DRUG SENTENCING ACT OF 2007
|
| |
Washington - Today Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) gave the following speech to introduce the Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Specter. This bipartisan, balanced effort will adjust the existing statutory ratio for cocaine sentencing to craft a more rational and effective sentencing policy. I must underscore that this bill continues to offer significant penalties for drug dealers, and ensures that those who continue to peddle dangerous substances in our communities will endure harsh consequences for their destructive choices; at the same time, though, S. ____ rectifies a long-standing disparity in cocaine sentencing that should have been fixed two decades ago.
Some background might be appropriate for my colleagues at this point. In 1986, Congress enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Law to address the growing problem of drug use in our country. This legislation created the basic framework of statutory mandatory minimum penalties which are currently applicable to federal drug trafficking offenses.
The law differentiated between powder and crack cocaine by establishing significantly higher penalties for crack cocaine offenses. It is likely this was done based on assumptions that crack cocaine was considered more dangerous and had increased levels of violence associated with its usage. Based on these assumptions, the law provided for quantity-based penalties which differed dramatically between the two forms of cocaine. Under that law, the current law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same five and ten year mandatory minimum sentences. This penalty structure is referred to as the “100 to 1 drug ratio."
Over the last decade, public officials, lawmakers, interest groups, criminal justice practitioners, and judges have all criticized and questioned the fairness and practicality of the federal sentencing policy for cocaine offenses created by the 1986 law. This 100 to 1 ratio is widely viewed as an unjustifiable disparity. Crack and powder cocaine are pharmacologically the same drug, and although the level of violence associated with crack is higher, it does not warrant such an extreme sentencing disparity.
It should also be noted that during the negotiations in 1986 that produced the 100 to 1 ratio law, a bill was introduced at the request of President Reagan which represented the Reagan administration’s views on drug policy. This bill was described as the “culmination” of President Reagan’s efforts in his commitment to fight drug abuse. The Reagan legislation utilized the same quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a five year mandatory minimum as what is called for in the legislation we are introducing today, reducing the sentencing disparity to a 20 to 1 ratio.
While many individuals can disagree on what the appropriate ratio should be, I am completely comfortable recommending the same amount previously requested by President Reagan. I supported his proposed 20 to 1 ratio in 1986, and I support this same ratio today.
Many organizations share our concern, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has advocated that Congress reduce the sentencing disparity on four different occasions between 1995 and 2007. The Commission has conducted a voluminous amount of research on this topic. This research has led to many conclusions by the Commission, including that the current penalties exaggerate the relative harmfulness of crack, sweep too broadly and apply most often to lower level offenders, and fail to provide adequate proportionality.
The Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act continues to recognize that crack and powder cocaine are not coequal in their destructive effects. On the contrary, the five fold reduction in the crack-powder ratio corrects the unjustifiable disparity, while appropriately reflecting the greater harm to our citizens and communities posed by crack cocaine.
This legislation also seeks to emphasize the defendant’s role in the crime, and will require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to examine sentencing enhancements for all federal drug violations, including methamphetamine. The Commission’s examination should include appropriate sentencing enhancements for offenders who brandished a weapon, sold to minors or pregnant women, sold drugs near schools, were involved in the importation of the illegal drugs into our country, or have previous felony drug trafficking convictions.
Mr. President, finding ways to reduce drug crime is not and should not be a partisan issue. All individuals involved in this process have tried to design a blueprint to curb the spread of drug trafficking and abuse. An easy, straightforward blueprint has unfortunately proven to be elusive. Since the 1970s, Congress has been working to improve federal sentencing policy and has routinely made necessary changes to make our sentencing structure more just and effective. The bill we introduce today seeks to remedy mistakes of the past and will provide a rational and just sentencing schedule while continuing to reflect the fundamental and befitting goals of the criminal justice system.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
