ILNews

Permanent retroactivity applied to crack-cocaine sentence reductions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Thousands of federal inmates nationally and more than 200 from Indiana could get time shaved off their prison terms for crack-cocaine convictions, after the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to make reductions retroactive starting later this year.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously June 30 that proposed amendments to the guidelines that are part of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 should become permanently retroactive, effective Nov. 1.

This is the latest in a multi-year push to revise the mandatory minimum-sentencing guidelines for those who’d been convicted for crack-cocaine offenses, a legal standard that’s been declared unreasonable and unconstitutional since first being implemented three decades ago.

Since the 1980s, the criminal justice system has gone by what’s known as the 100-to-1 ratio: someone convicted of possessing and intending to distribute five grams of crack cocaine in rock form would receive the same five-year minimum sentence as those doing the same with 500 grams or more of the powder-form cocaine.

But after landmark rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005 that restructured the nation’s sentencing structure, federal judges began looking at changes. Judge David F. Hamilton – as a Southern District of Indiana judge before his elevation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals – studied that issue as part of the Committee on Criminal Law of the U.S. Judicial Conference and ultimately wrote to the Sentencing Commission about allowing retroactive reductions to those sentences.

The commission first voted in late 2007 to make sentencing reductions retroactive beginning in March 2008, and since then more than 16,000 convicts – 65 percent of those who requested relief – have been granted reduced sentences throughout the country.

The Northern District of Indiana has granted 80 percent and reduced 218 sentences, while the Southern District has granted about 59 percent and reduced 64 sentences, according to sentencing data. Overall, data shows the Northern District has reduced sentences by 17.2 percent – or 22 months total – while the Southern District has lowered sentences by 15.5 percent – or 31 months total based on the cases it’s handled.

The commission has continued studying that issue through the years. The Fair Sentencing Act passed in 2010 that took effect Aug. 3, 2010, included lower sentences for crack-cocaine offenses going forward, but didn’t address retroactivity and that is what the proposed amendments to the guidelines focus on. A full day hearing June 1 brought in national experts to speak on the issue and why it’s needed, and the commission members spent the past month considering views from Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the federal judiciary and legal community before making this decision.

If Congress doesn’t disapprove of the amendment and revise it, then the retroactive reductions would go into effect and mean federal judges would be responsible for determining if convicts should receive lower sentences. Based on fiscal year 2010 sentencing data, approximately 12,000 offenders may be eligible to receive a sentence reduction, and the average reduction for those eligible would be about 37 months – leading to an average sentence, even after reductions, of about 10 years. The Bureau of Prisons estimates that this retroactivity could result in more than $200 million in savings during the first five years after retroactivity takes effect.

For Indiana going forward, data shows that 142 inmates sentenced between 1992 and 2010 could be eligible for lower sentences in the Northern District and 80 might be eligible in the Southern District. Most would be eligible for release from prison either immediately on Nov. 1, 2011, three years out, or more than six years after the retroactivity application takes effect, figures show, depending on when they were originally sentenced.

Now on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Hamilton told Indiana Lawyer that he hasn’t followed this issue closely recently but that generally he expects new cases to materialize in the District and Circuit courts as a result. He declined to speak more specifically because those issues might come before him, but judicial decisions recently show this retroactivity topic has been controversial.

A Wisconsin case before the 7th Circuit earlier this year hit on the topic, questioning when the Fair Sentencing Act and crack-cocaine offenses should be applied to those sentenced after its passage in 2010 for offenses convicted prior to that time. That case was U.S. v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2011), and a three-judge panel decided nothing could be done retroactively. The appellate court denied rehearing the case en banc, though Judges Hamilton and Ann C. Williams both dissented on that denial and said they would have agreed to hear it and apply the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively.

The 7th Circuit was the first nationally to address that question, and now with this new retroactivity guideline amendment, those types of cases could have a different outcome.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT