Evolution of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Crack Cocaine: Social Construction and Social Control (From New War on Drugs: Symbolic Politics and Criminal Justice Policy, P 91-106, 1998, Eric L. Jensen and Jurg Gerber, eds. -- See NCJ-170568)

• NCJ Number: 170574
• Author(s): R S Everett
• Date Published: 1998
• Length: 16 pages
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: DCC.

Annotation

This paper analyzes the creation of Federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine, using a social constructionist theoretical framework to interpret the process.

Abstract

Social constructionists are concerned with how social problems are selected, interpreted, presented, and ultimately addressed through social policies. The notion that crack was more addictive, producing much greater social and psychological damage to individuals, families, and communities, was a prominent theme in early media reports about it. Even in the mid-1980s, clear supporting evidence of this relationship was limited. Built on weak, and in many cases anecdotal evidence, arguments to increase the penalties for crack cocaine were developed in the Crime Control Acts of 1986 and 1988. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, contained within the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, established the basic structure of mandatory minimum sentences based on drug type and weight. First Congress and then the U.S. Sentencing Commission responded to the "plague" of crack cocaine by selecting its users for particularly harsh punishment. The 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act made crack cocaine the only drug with a mandatory minimum penalty for a first offense of simple possession. Stimulated by the emerging Federal sentencing data, arguments of institutional racism and unwarranted sentence disparity appeared in the popular media. In 1995 the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended that Congress equalize the penalties for the distribution of crack and powder cocaine and treat possession of either in the same manner. Congress rejected this recommendation. The dominance of ideology in the formation of criminal justice policy is clearly revealed in the debate over the punishment for crack and powder cocaine. Sending the appropriate message is considered more important than the actual consequences of criminal justice policy. Rigid adherence to ideology and the fear of seeming "soft on crime" now dominate political discourse and direct criminal justice policy formation. 2 notes