CRACK/POWDER COCAINE: ANALYZING VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF EVERLASTING INEQUAILTY

Abstract

In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was enacted in the US criminal justice system. This legislation set in place a ratio of 100:1 for powder and crack-cocaine offenses. This meant that under federal law, 100 grams of powder cocaine were equivalent to just 1 gram of crack-cocaine, despite the substances being pharmacologically identical. This difference resulted in stark sentencing inequalities among Black and White defendants. In 2010, changes were made to the ratio to “equalize” the substances. At that time, the ratio was lessened to 18:1, under the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). Despite this change, a large body of research shows that distinct disparities persisted. In 2018, the First Step Act was enacted to address shortcomings of the FSA but left the 18:1 ratio intact. As such, a ratio of 18:1 remains today. To uncover the nuances that exist within these sentencing outcomes, I used various years of data from the United States Sentencing Commission to create four separate data blocks. With these blocks, I first explored how various amendments made to the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity impacted sentencing outcomes among these two substances. Then, I employed an intersectional framework to examine the relationship between race, sex, and education level and crack/powder-cocaine sentencing outcomes. Last, to explore other important aspects that have historically influenced crack/powder cocaine sentencing outcomes, I explored the use of the 851 enhancement among these two substances, focusing specifically on how race and cocaine type impact the presence of this enhancement at the time of sentencing. The 851 enhancement allows prosecutors to “enhance” mandatory minimum sentences for those who have prior drug convictions. Importantly, this enhancement is not automatic; prosecutors must choose to file this information using their own discretion. As such, inequalities in its use exist, particularly in relation to drug type and racial identity (USSC, 2016). Findings show that in post-Booker (2005) and post-Gall/Kimbrough (2007) sentencing schemes, offenses involving crack-cocaine received harsher sentencing outcomes than offenses involving powder cocaine. Interestingly, results of this study show that in a post-Fair Sentencing Act (2010) sentencing scheme, individuals convicted of crack-cocaine related offenses received more lenient sentences than those convicted of powder cocaine related offenses. When examining the intersections of race and sex, Black men charged with crack-cocaine offenses were more likely to receive longer criminal sentences than all other individuals charged with crack-cocaine offenses, with the exception of Hispanic men and those who identified in the “other” racial category. When examining the intersection between race, sex, education level, and sentencing outcomes, analyses found that White, Black, and Hispanic women with less than a high school diploma received shorter sentencing outcomes for crack-cocaine related offenses in comparison to Black men with less than a high school diploma. Additionally, White women with a college level education received significantly shorter sentences than Black men with a less than a high school diploma. Importantly, Hispanic men with less than a high school diploma received significantly longer sentences compared to Black men with less than a high school diploma. Last, when examining the factors that may influence an 851-enhancement being present at the time of sentencing, none of the main independent variables included in the analysis were significant. Overall, this dissertation serves as an up-to-date exploration of the various ways in which crack/powder cocaine sentencing outcomes remain imbalanced, and bolsters the argument that in order to wholly remedy these stark, persistent inequalities, the 18:1 ratio attached to crack and powder cocaine must finally be abolished once and for all.