Talked about drugs a bit last week, and now I'm at it again. Responding to a great article by Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist who is relating the increased scrutiny our drug laws are recieving. Attorney General John Ashcroft is determined to continue fighting the drug war with all his might. Some in the courts, particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy, are saying that the mandatory minimums impair a judge's ability to impart justice. There's no leeway for thsoe cases when Mercy might be worthwhile.
She also comments on the racial aspects of mandetory minimums, a brave move. She states, "I called the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports California's "three-strikes" law, for a contrary view. I didn't get it: Legal director Kent Scheidegger said Kennedy is "right, there are some things that should be re-examined," such as the disparity that mandates a five-year minimum sentence for 500 grams of cocaine, but also for 5 grams (100 times less) of crack.
In 1998, 85 percent of crack arrests involved African Americans, while 31 percent of powder cocaine arrests involved black defendants."
I generally agree that we need to reexamine our drug laws--if not the entire war on drugs. Like most ill-concieved "wars," including Vietnam, we don't seem to have a clear idea on how to win.
No comments:
Post a Comment