The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine under the federal sentencing guidelines: The impact and ramifications on equal protection and due process

One of the primary objectives of Congress when it enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, and promulgated the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, was to achieve “reasonable uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders” (U.S.S.G., 1994: Ch. 1 Pt. A(3)). However, the sentencing provision pertaining to offenses involving crack and powder cocaine contains an inherent disparity because of the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio incorporated therein. The application of this sentencing provision results in significantly longer sentences being imposed upon crack offenders, compared to powder cocaine offenders, for similar offenses with the same drug quantity. Moreover, this results in longer sentences being imposed upon blacks, as the primary crack offenders, compared with the typically white, powder cocaine offender receiving significantly shorter sentences.; The objective of the present study was to expand our understanding of equal protection issues related to sentencing guidelines with different drug quantity ratios for sentences based upon whether the offense involved crack or powder cocaine. Both the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and all state sentencing provisions that treat powder cocaine and crack cocaine differently were examined and compared. The equal protection provisions of the relevant state constitutions were analyzed and compared to ascertain whether they were substantially similar to those of the United States Constitution. Our understanding of the relationship between the disparities in sentencing and equal protection issues was furthered by a legal analysis and comparison of relevant state and federal case law.; This examination revealed a wide range of drug quantity ratios applied to crack and powder cocaine by various states. These disparate ratios were generally applied under state constitutional provisions providing the same guarantees of due process and equal protection as those in the United States Constitution. There is slightly more flexibility in the application of equal protection analysis, as applied to the validity of the crack/powder cocaine disparity, in the state courts than the federal courts, however.