Via the Miami Herald: Supreme Court permits flexible drug sentencing

In a closely watched 7-2 ruling that temporarily united conservatives, centrists and liberals on the bench, the court ruled that trial judges can impose less severe punishment than federal sentencing guidelines call for. Increasingly, trial judges and lawmakers contend that crack cocaine sentencing guidelines are draconian and racially biased, because most convicted crack dealers are African American.

At a minimum it is clear that the guidelines regarding crack were derived during a period of near hysteria over that particular drug:

Spooked by stories of crack’s super-potency, Congress set much stricter penalties for crack than for powder cocaine two decades ago. The so-called ‘’100 to 1′’ sentencing disparity means that possessing 5 grams of crack brings the same five-year prison term as possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine.

There is no logical reason why dealing in crack should be considered a more serious crime than dealing in powder cocaine. But, of course, when has logic ever dictated anti-drug policy?

Underlying the entire policy is the notion that increased threats of punishment would deter dealers. As such, it raises an interesting research question, which is whether there is any evidence that sentencing differentials effected the trafficking and sale of the two drugs over the period in time in question. One would expect, for example, that if enhanced threats of punishment had a deterrent effect, then there would have been a decrease in crack trafficking—and indeed, a shift in business dealings towards the lesser crime of dealing in powder cocaine. However, my guess is that such evidence would be hard to find. While it is my general sense that crack is less in vogue than it used to be, it clearly remains widely available.