Posted On:
July 28, 2010
Crack/ powder cocaine sentencing bill passed US House
Both the US Senate and the House of Representatives have passed S.1789, which reduces the 100-1 sentencing ratio for crack to powder cocaine to 18-1, and which does away with the five year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed landmark legislation to dramatically reduce the sentencing disparity between federal crack and powder cocaine sentences and to repeal the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine. The bill, S. 1789, already won unanimous approval from the Senate in March and now goes to the White House for President Obama’s certain signature. Its passage marks the first time that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum drug sentence since the Nixon administration.
Comments
This is GREAT but they aren't going to retro the bill??that doesn't make any sense:(
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2010 6:04 PM
The bill is silent on retroactivity, but because it doesn't expressly forgo that option the USSC could make the guidelines amendments retroactive. They've done it once before.
Posted by: Stuart Sarratt | July 28, 2010 7:07 PM
After taking a look at the bill's text, I'm not so sure retroactivity is a possibility after all. Congress has included the guidelines amendments in this bill, and I imagine the USSC is bound to amend the guidelines as provided by S.1789 unless the language about the USSC's procedures "set out in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987" gives the commission the power to make the amendments retroactive. Thoughts?
Posted by: Stuart Sarratt | July 28, 2010 8:15 PM
I think it will be retroactive for cases that are pending - regardless of the language of the bill, I think that judges will apply the 18-1 ratio.
The question is will it be made retroactive for those who have already been sentenced, allowing inmates to petition the court for a reduction in sentence? I don't know.
Posted by: BFrederick | July 29, 2010 4:44 PM
what i don't seem to understand is if the government found the old ratio to be unfair and saw that it needed to be changed and then they changed it that means to me that all the people who were sentenced before this new bill was passed were sentenced under a unfair ratio and there for should be given the same chance to be sentenced fairly as anyone else .
Posted by: SHERRY | August 9, 2010 11:40 AM
Not making this law retroactive would be unfair to so many. I pray that someone in Congress writes a new bill for retroactivity or the ussc make the guideline ammendments retroactive. This will make a just statement to all.
Posted by: Shawn | August 15, 2010 4:37 PM
I think that S 1789 should be retro or it should be another bill passed where the one's who were sentencted unfairly will be able to be released. Especially if the crimes were non - violent.
Posted by: Candace Mills | October 11, 2010 2:17 PM