Sentencing Commission introduced figures stating that no class of drug is as racially skewed as crack in terms of numbers of offenses. In 2002, the United States Sentencing Commission 'found that the ratio was created based upon a misperception of the dangers of crack cocaine, which had since been proven to have a less drastic effect than previously thought.' In 2009, the U.S. As a result, thousands of people – mostly African Americans – have received disproportionately harsh prison sentences.' Sentencing Commission concluded that the disparity created a 'racial imbalance in federal prisons and led to more severe sentences for low-level crack dealers than for wholesale suppliers of powder cocaine. The sentencing disparity between these two drug offenses is perceived by a number of commentators as racially biased.
The Los Angeles Times commented, 'There was never any scientific basis for the disparity, just panic as the crack epidemic swept the nation's cities.' The study explored other reasons why crack is viewed as more addictive and theorized, 'a more accurate interpretation of existing evidence is that already abuse-prone cocaine users are most likely to move toward a more efficient mode of ingestion as they escalate their use. Ī study released in 1997 examined the addictive nature of both crack and powder cocaine and concluded that one was no more addictive than the other. Īt that time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the high ratio: crack cocaine was more addictive than powder cocaine crack cocaine was associated with violent crime youth were more likely to be drawn to crack cocaine crack cocaine was inexpensive, and therefore more likely to be consumed in large quantities and use of crack cocaine by pregnant mothers was dangerous for their unborn children. Similarly, those carrying ten grams of crack cocaine faced a ten-year mandatory sentence, while possession of one thousand grams of powder cocaine was required for the same sentence to be imposed. While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, a person holding powder cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he or she held five hundred grams. In the three decades prior to the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possessing crack cocaine faced much more severe penalties than those in possession of powder cocaine. The law also contained minimum sentences and other disparities between the two forms of the drug. In response, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included a provision that created the disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same penalties for the possession of an amount of crack cocaine as for 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The use of crack cocaine increased rapidly in the 1980s, accompanied by an increase in violence in urban areas. The Act has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and non-profit organizations have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and complete elimination of the disparity (i.e., enacting a 1:1 sentencing ratio). Legislation to reduce the disparity has been introduced since the mid-1990s, culminating in the signing of the Fair Sentencing Act. Further controversy surrounding the 100:1 ratio was a result of its description by some as being racially biased and contributing to a disproportionate number of African Americans being sentenced for crack cocaine offenses. In the decades since, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the sentencing disparity is unwarranted. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 implemented the initial disparity, reflecting Congress's view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder cocaine. The English and Reading sections are less comprehensive. It covers Math most thoroughly, followed by Science.
#SWITCHREZ X CRACK FULL#
Like Barron's ACT, Princeton Review's Cracking the ACT is a comprehensive, traditional test prep book that provides a full review of content, strategies, and practice questions. Generally, you'll take the ACT for the first time in the spring of your junior year, and scores typically come back in two to eight weeks. The ACT is a nationally administered, standardized paper-and-pencil test that helps colleges evaluate candidates.
0 kommentar(er)
