CRIME & PUNISHMENT:
The
BREAKING THE CHAINS , APRIL 1 - 3 2004
Sharda Sekaran
What political
factors contributed to the development of a criminal justice-based drug
policy?
Domestically,
What is the
relationship between racial profiling and drug law enforcement?
Enforcement of the drug laws is the primary
motivating force behind racial profiling activity. When cars are stopped and searched at
random – the randomization usually creates an opportunity for race-based
decision making – officers are rarely looking for evidence of crimes such as
shoplifting, burglary or murder.
Instead, they are searching for drugs or other evidence of
drug-related activity.
A 1996 study of traffic stops along Interstate 95
in
There is a self-perpetuating, cyclical quality to
the treatment of blacks and Latinos in the
What impact have
mandatory minimum drug sentencing and conspiracy provisions had on the
criminal justice system?
During the 1970s and
1980s, sentences for drug offenses increased dramatically for three
reasons. First, Congress and many
state legislatures passed mandatory minimum sentencing and “three strikes” or
“habitual offender” laws that require judges to hand out fixed sentences to
people convicted of certain crimes.
Second, “truth in sentencing” laws and other laws abolishing parole
release systems were enacted. Third, the application of conspiracy provisions
for drug offenses has made it possible to convict and sentence any individual
as a major player or director of a drug-supply network, even if that
particular person knew of and was involved in only a small part of the
operation. These policies resulted in
a dramatic increase in actual time served by drug offenders.
While the intent was to
punish high-level drug offenders, such as drug kingpins and major dealers,
the laws have had the opposite effect – high-level drug offenders who have
access to more information can plea bargain their way to reduced sentences,
while low-level offenders with no information to trade for leniency are
sentenced to unusually long terms.
These “snitch” provisions provide an incentive for arrestees to
provide as much information about others as possible – whether it is true or
not – in order to escape long sentences themselves, thus decreasing the
reliability of evidence used to convict people.
For different reasons, federal criminal sentencing laws impact certain communities of color more than other racial and ethnic groups. For example, federal drug sentencing laws – some of the harshest sentencing laws in the country – expose Native American offenders to longer sentences because all crimes committed on federally recognized tribal lands are subject to the provisions and sentencing mandates of federal criminal law instead of state criminal law. Mandatory minimum sentences make African American drug law violators more likely to be incarcerated, and for longer periods of time, than their white counterparts. Under legislation passed by Congress in 1986, it takes 1/100 as much crack cocaine as powder cocaine to trigger equal mandatory minimum sentences. As scientists and courts alike have recognized, there is no rational basis for distinguishing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Nonetheless, in 1994, 90 percent of persons convicted of federal crack cocaine offenses were black, 6 percent Latino, and less than 4 percent white. Federal powder cocaine offenders were 30 percent black, 43 percent Latino, and 26 percent white.[ii]
According to a study by the RAND Corp., “though
it is too early to make a final judgment,
How has drug law
enforcement affected prison populations in the
As a result of the reliance on incarceration as
the principal means of responding to drugs in the
The rate of drug admissions to state prison for
black men is 13 times greater than the rate for white men. A recent report by
Human Rights Watch found that while drug use is consistent across all racial
groups, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to be arrested, prosecuted and
given long sentences for drug offenses. Blacks constitute 13 percent of all
drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession; 55 percent
convicted; and 74 percent incarcerated.[iv]
Nationally, Latinos comprise almost half of those arrested for
marijuana offenses[v] and Native Americans comprise almost
2/3 of those prosecuted for criminal offenses in federal courts.[vi]
How has the drug war
undermined the political representation of people of color?
The impact that current drug policies have had on
social structures and political power in black and Latino communities has
been devastating. As a result of the
war on drugs poor communities of color have been politically weakened by laws
that disenfranchise voters for felony convictions and provide economic
incentives for rural communities to embrace prisons as a form of economic
development. The prevailing theory
about prisons in many locales is “if we build them, they will come.”
Almost 41.4 million African American males, or 14
percent of the adult black male population, are currently unable to vote as a
result of felony convictions. Black
men represent more than 36 percent of the total disenfranchised male
population in the
Prisoners are counted by the national census as
residents of the towns in which they are imprisoned, leaving their hometowns
– often urban communities of color – with diminished political power and
government funding. Since voting
representation and the distribution of government resources are determined by
population, drug law convicts of color bring a transfer of public funds and
electoral influence from their home communities, which are generally urban
and often poor, to the mostly rural towns in which they are imprisoned.[viii]
The effects of these discrepancies are huge,
resulting in decreased trust of the criminal justice system within
communities of color. When someone is
removed from their community, there are ramifications both for that
individual and for the community as a whole.
There are fewer people there to work, to raise children, to buy goods
for sale, to vote and to be part of community and religious institutions.
How else have
families and communities of color been impacted by drug law enforcement?
As more and more people of color face
incarceration due to drug charges, the collateral effects on their families
and communities are numerous. Increasingly, children are raised by either
one parent or by grandparents or other extended family members because of the
incarceration of a custodial parent.
If they have no family members available to care for them, these
children are integrated into a foster care system that is overburdened,
under-supervised and expensive.
Studies show that children who are separated from their families do
not perform as well in school, have greater physical and mental health problems
and are at higher risk for criminal justice involvement. Finally, when parents return to their
communities, their drug convictions often make it difficult to find work or
qualify for certain benefits, affecting their ability to reunite with and care
for their children. Instead of facilitating
healthier lifestyles, drug law enforcement perpetuates disintegration of
family and community structures and creates cycles of economic and community
struggle that many find difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.
What would
alternative approaches to current criminal justice-focused drug policy look
like?
Affluent, predominantly white suburban communities have long recognized that the drug war need not be fought only on the incarceration front. Alternatives such as drug treatment and education are mainstays of white, middle-class efforts to reduce drug abuse in their neighborhoods. A strategy centered on such demand reduction efforts makes sense: The RAND Corp. has estimated that investing an additional $1 million in drug treatment programs would reduce serious crime by 15 times more than enacting mandatory sentences for drug offenders.[ix] An effective, alternative approach to drugs would focus on the actual health and safety of communities and families and provide an appropriate array of services and resources so that each individual has the opportunity to realize his or her full potential.
Traducido del inglês por MamaCoca
MM Moreno