Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 Analysis - Research Paper Example

Over the years it has been seen that there has been a controversy within the legal system regarding the penalties levied upon the people who possess drugs. Cocaine possession has been one of the most controversial subjects in the legal system. Anti Drug Acts have a history which dates back to the years of 1986 when the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed when the basketball star Len Bias died after consuming a high dose of powder cocaine. The Act imposed a 100-1 disparity between the people who possessed crack cocaine and powder cocaine. It was generally believed that crack was more addictive, dangerous and involved violence in trafficking than powder cocaine. A five-year ban was imposed on people found with five grams of crack whereas a similar mandatory ban was imposed on people who possessed 500 grams of powder cocaine. It was because of this disparity that another act was implemented in 2010 known as The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This act lowered the ratio of possession of crack cocaine to powder cocaine in relevant terms of 100:1 to 18:1. The act has been praised by many authorities as it tends to lower the disparity between the people who used to commit these crimes and also save millions of dollars for the government (FAMM, 2011; Stewart, 2010).

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was signed by President Obama to lower the disparity between crimes which involved powder cocaine or crack. The Act is not only being implemented for the people who will commit the crime but it is also being made retroactive so that people who are sentenced for the act are allowed some concession too. The Act was introduced after years of reports and research which proved that powder and crack were almost the same drugs with the same lethality. In 1995, the USSC issued a report to Congress about the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. It put forward that 80% of the crack offenders were black and this was causing serious racial disparities between the races as these blacks were considering the Act to be biased. It was in 1995 that an act was being sought by the USSC regarding the disparity but such an attempt was rejected by the Congress then. In 2002, another report was filed by the USSC which put forward that pharmacologically the harmful effects of crack were similar to that of powder cocaine. It also put forward that the amount of violence in the crimes involving crime was being exaggerated by the reports and was rather creating a disparity of races. In 2007, the USSC filed another report to Congress which appealed that the imprisonment of 5 years for the simple possession of crack should be decreased and the ratio of the possession of crack should also be decreased for a crime. Over these years many other conclusions and recommendations were forwarded to Congress by the USSC and finally, in 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 came into being so that these disparities could be removed (FAMM, 2011). The Act came into being so that the criminals involved in the usage or trafficking of powder cocaine were also brought to justice. Moreover, the problems between races were also targeted by the Act so that neither race could conclude that the Acts were against them only. On 28th July 2010 the United States Attorney General Eric Holder stated that “I congratulate the House of Representatives on today’s passage of the Fair Sentencing Act. The bill greatly reduced the unwarranted disparity of for crack and powder cocaine offences and will go a long way toward ensuring that our sentencing laws are tough, consistent and fair” (Reid, p. 305).

This statement clearly shows that the Act was an attempt to clear the disparity between different crimes involving cocaine. The Act eliminated the minimum 5-year penalty for people who were found to possess crack cocaine. It further increased the penalties for other crimes which involved drugs and were considered to be more violent (Reid, 2012). The Sentencing Act seems to be quite successful in removing the disparities between the crimes committed. The Act considers all the people involved in the crimes and gives a chance to everyone. The danger of crack and powder cocaine has both been realized and the individual possessing either would be charged accordingly. Moreover, the Act is getting retroactive so that it can consider those people who were previously found guilty of possessing crack. This clearly shows that the act has not gone far enough or left behind any stone unturned in correcting the disparities (Stewart, 2010).

The problem of drugs has been very old in the United States of America. The Free Sentencing Act of 2010 is an attempt to remove the differences which were previously created by the Anti-Drug Act of 1986. It is also believed that the act would help to economize the budget invested in criminal activities. It is believed that it would decrease the number of crack sentences by almost 27 months and save an estimated $42 million in the coming five years. Moreover, it is also estimated that around 1500 beds in the prison would also be saved as these crimes seem to be a lot prevalent in American society (FAMM, 2011). These things can then be used effectively for other important purposes. All these points add up to the effectiveness of the Act as these figures can then be invested in a better form. The Act has so far proved to be successful and it is believed that over the coming years, it will prove its effectiveness by reducing the disparity created by the previous Act and would benefit the American government in monetary terms also.