Supreme Court Drug Ruling Opens Door for Real Sentencing Reform

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a dramatic and important decision on federal-sentencing guidelines. The Court ruled in a pair of drug cases that federal judges are no longer required to adhere to harsh sentencing guidelines - a development that could lead to decreased federal sentences for people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.

The Court's decision now opens the door for Congress to address the issue of harsh federal sentences. But there's no telling what Congress might do with this opportunity. In fact, we already know that some in Congress will take the Supreme Court decision as an opportunity to increase prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

On June 24, 2004, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Blakely v. Washington, which called into question the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines and dozens of state sentencing guidelines. The case involved the sentencing of Ralph Blakely Jr., a Washington State man who pled guilty to kidnapping his estranged wife. The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in June said only juries, not judges, may consider extenuating circumstances that could add time to a prison sentence. Before this ruling, judges in Washington and many other states could increase prison time by considering factors that had not been considered by a jury -- such as the use of a weapon or the person's role in the crime -- to increase prison sentences.

Although Blakely did not directly challenge the constitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines, many lower courts saw enough similarities between Washington's guidelines and the federal ones to cause a bevy of confusion. Following the decision, several courts issued differing opinions on what Blakely meant for their district.

There were enough discrepancies within individual districts to warrant the Supreme Court starting this year's term by hearing two cases which dealt with the question of whether Blakely applied to the federal system. The two cases, United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, were argued on Oct. 4, 2004.

A January 12, 2005 US Supreme Court Decision granted Congress a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pursue meaningful sentencing reform and embrace alternatives to incarceration. The Court, in a decision on federal-sentencing guidelines, ruled in a pair of drug cases that federal judges are no longer required to adhere to harsh sentencing guidelines - a development that could lead to decreased federal sentences for people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.

Until now, substance abuse has been the only health issue in which criminal justice approaches have taken precedence over medical and public-health concerns. Advancing alternatives to incarceration involves the diversion of certain non-violent drug offenders from prison to drug treatment, offering compassionate options in public policy, with obvious fiscal advantages.

These statistics on federal prison populations were compiled by the Sentencing Project:

As of 2003, 161, 673 people were held in federal prisons, an increase of 81% from 1995

Only 13% of federal prisoners are serving time for a violent offense

More than half (55%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a drug offense

72.1% are non-violent offenders with no history of violence

34.4% are first-time non-violent offenders

From 1992 to 2002, the average time served in prison for a drug offense increased by 31%, from 32.7 months to 42.9 months

African American drug offenders have a 20% greater chance of being sentenced to prison than white drug offenders, and Hispanics have a 40% greater chance

Article provided by Drug Policy Alliance.